| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1212
   |
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:15:00 -
[91] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout. Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong?
IIRC the difference is a little over 30%, which is nominal given the additional effort required to form a fleet and get ships to location. You also cannot use the same "shiny" fleets, unless you are very certain of how secure the area is, and a noticeable increase in NPC deaths will very quickly bring people to the system to check on you.
Basically if you think waiting a little while for a fleet in high sec is bad, try forming a low sec incursion fleet.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:30:00 -
[92] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout. Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong? IIRC the difference is a little over 30%, which is nominal given the additional effort required to form a fleet and get ships to location. You also cannot use the same "shiny" fleets, unless you are very certain of how secure the area is, and a noticeable increase in NPC deaths will very quickly bring people to the system to check on you. Basically if you think waiting a little while for a fleet in high sec is bad, try forming a low sec incursion fleet.
I would have thought the form-up wait would be lower as you have a closed pool of allies and should relatively quickly know if/how/when you are running. Some highsec groups have this convenience as well, others not so much. The group I run with has alot of downtime during certain parts of the day often from a lack of pilots.
As far as the numbers, I believe the highsec sites have a 0.7 multiplier of the null/low values. I don't shiny fit so I have no clue as to how much more effective it makes the ship, but I've seen nullsec players claim to do quite well facerolling NCO's in legions prior to the change.
There is the concern of the dangers of those areas, but what is the "fair" multiplication factor in accounting for this? Too low and it's not worth it, but the fact that they were done before means to someone it was worth it, and too high and the income level becomes broken. Maybe that needs revisited? |
Challu
Wishful Desires Inc.
Armada Assail
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:34:00 -
[93] - Quote
I don't think nerfing of the the 10% VG payouts was a major issue in plummeting interest - as someone pointed out, if a site takes 3-4x time to do, that's a 60-70% nerf.. And it's not like the influence does not hit 0% in the one that the community chooses to focus on these days. You'll very probably find that this roll-back will have minimal influence on how many VGs are run, and how the community responds through its actions.
The reason is because earlier, VGs were FUN to run. Small fleets, fast paced action, space for intelligent use of ships and tactics even when not blitzing. Now, it's just a grind. Kinda like WoW. And that is simply not fun.
In an ideal world, you could spawn a second class of incursions where the 10% reduction in bounty and influence difficulty remain, but the sites are more interesting to do. Either through the reintroduction of the trigger, or even better, random spawns or random triggers. I think you'll find much more interest in those sites, even as risk is aligned with reward.
What is sad about this nerf is that it also decimated the great incursion community that had formed. Please take away what caused that demise, and incursions will make sense again. |
ISeeDeath
Cogs and Sprogs Starship Mechanics
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:01:00 -
[94] - Quote
I would like seeing the communities running VG back up running again.
Question is what will it take to restore that part of the game. 10% un-nerf of a nerf that was above 50% prolly will not make it. Talking to friends who used to run incursions indicates that its not sufficient.
I hope that in this case CCP will listen to those who actually did run incursions instead of listing to the jeoleus people who didn't do incursions and never will do incursions. Their smack talk is only there to try to make their favorite occupation in game in favor instead of the incursions.
I ran incursions because I like the social part of it but I cant do it when everybody thinks the effort is not worth the ISK. And they are right. I can make more ISK solo compared to doing incursions as they are now and that is still the case with the 10 % un-nerf.
Dear CCP listen to those who enjoyed the incursion part of the game instead of a lot of people smack talking incursions. After all you do the rework for the benefit of those enjoying that part of the game and nobody else.
Look at my post above to find my few cents on what further work (rework) you need to do.
ISeeDeath |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:04:00 -
[95] - Quote
I have this odd feeling that I'm the only one who likes OTA's now... |
ISeeDeath
Cogs and Sprogs Starship Mechanics
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:06:00 -
[96] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I have this odd feeling that I'm the only one who likes OTA's now...
You prolly are. They are doable but wears out the fleetmembers very fast. People dont want them as they are now.
Move the Mara closer ... remove the bi-spawns... remove a few ships from all the sites ... then we are talking VG back up running. |
DJ N00B
National Order Of Bastards Yearning
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:13:00 -
[97] - Quote
Very quick and to the point.
The changes are a start but I don't feel they really are enough to get people running vg's again. They also don't address the biggest issue, that being the ota's. OTA's are too hard for fleets other than super shiney ones. So the end result is going to be stacking OTA's in systems with very few, if any, fleet running them.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:17:00 -
[98] - Quote
DJ N00B wrote:Very quick and to the point.
The changes are a start but I don't feel they really are enough to get people running vg's again. They also don't address the biggest issue, that being the ota's. OTA's are too hard for fleets other than super shiney ones. So the end result is going to be stacking OTA's in systems with very few, if any, fleet running them.
Define supershiny. I've been in a system where they stacked because they took longer, but not because they were impossible and the fleet was a mix of ships including a tech 1 BS, a few navy and pirate BS's and a couple of T3's and not everyone was shiny fit, some only running T2 mods. Even then it wasn't particularly painful. |
DJ N00B
National Order Of Bastards Yearning
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:21:00 -
[99] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:DJ N00B wrote:Very quick and to the point.
The changes are a start but I don't feel they really are enough to get people running vg's again. They also don't address the biggest issue, that being the ota's. OTA's are too hard for fleets other than super shiney ones. So the end result is going to be stacking OTA's in systems with very few, if any, fleet running them.
Define supershiny. I've been in a system where they stacked because they took longer, but not because they were impossible and the fleet was a mix of ships including a tech 1 BS, a few navy and pirate BS's and a couple of T3's and not everyone was shiny fit, some only running T2 mods. Even then it wasn't particularly painful.
I'm not saying they can't be done. I'm saying that because they take so damned long to do that people just don't want to bother. They can make better money running missions for crying out loud or doing what many others have and that's just go run as/hq's. |
|
CCP Affinity
C C P
C C P Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:25:00 -
[100] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:Borlag Crendraven wrote:The problem in that will be that you wont see much if any changes in the way people run (or rather don't run) incursions if you don't change it so that people actually want to run the sites again. Sure, for null sec players that influence bar change will change it for the better, but for the low sec and high sec players it will mean very little, same with that 10% isk reward. The whole thing just seems so backwards done that it's not even funny, right from the start when you nerfed them to the way you're backtracking on the wrong things.
Incursioners for the most part would be content with smaller reward, but incursioners for the most part will be looking for other activities if the fleets don't run. That's something you haven't adressed at all with this announcement. You basically have content that no one wants to use, where's the sense in that? This is it exactly CCP It's mentioned that VG's fell to the floor after your last change but you are not asking "why did they fall to the floor and what was the biggest reason they fell to the floor?" You are not drilling down to the real root cause. Now, if changing the OTA's is not a simple fix and one you can't get to right now, so you are adjusting the issues you can fix in hopes it will work is all you can do, then that is fine. Just be honest. At least I don't hope you are really counting on the new fixes to fix the issue 
Just to clear this up again, as people seem to be confused. We weren't happy with the outcome of the changes so we are rolling back. This has absolutely nothing to do with fixing Incursions or making right or wrong changes in the future .. it is simply that once the changes hit TQ, we didn't feel they sent Incursions in a direction we want to take them - so we are reverting them. Now we will have an almost pre-escalation slate to start from and make the right changes. I have several threads of feedback and have spoken with many people about the future of Incursions and we will make a lot more threads about the changes as they progress.
CCP Affinity | Team Five 0 |-á @CCP_Affinity |
|
|
|
Pseudo Ucksth
The First One is Always Free
Test Alliance Please Ignore
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:36:00 -
[101] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There is the concern of the dangers of those areas, but what is the "fair" multiplication factor in accounting for this? Too low and it's not worth it, but the fact that they were done before means to someone it was worth it, and too high and the income level becomes broken. Maybe that needs revisited?
We don't need to talk multiples, we need to talk straight isk/hour. The payouts were too high, and now they're too low. Even though we do have a closed pool of allies to draw from, not everyone is available to run 23/7, especially during deployments.
Lowsec & nullsec incursions should be balanced to pay out about as much per individual as high-end solo ratting, or else everyone is just going to go hide in their sanctums with their tengus instead of coming out to socialize.
Currently, in Fountain, doing anomalies with a tengu that has fighters assigned to it can make upwards of 90m/hr. Many people who don't have a carrier have a second tengu and can make even more.
CCP: We don't care what the missions are or what flaming hoops we have to jump through to get the payouts, as long as it's balanced with other forms of income.
The magic number is between 80-90. |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope
Gallente Federation
142
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:43:00 -
[102] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote:Just to clear this up again, as people seem to be confused.
...
Now we will have an almost pre-escalation slate to start from and make the right changes. But your devblog only says you're changing the system influence and 10% Vanguard reward. Nothing about the changes to site content & triggers. Without addressing those failed changes, it seems the problems will not be solved, incursions won't be worth the effort of maintaining fleets & communities, despite their value to the playerbase compared to other equivalent or superior isk/hour activities.  |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:43:00 -
[103] - Quote
Pseudo Ucksth wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There is the concern of the dangers of those areas, but what is the "fair" multiplication factor in accounting for this? Too low and it's not worth it, but the fact that they were done before means to someone it was worth it, and too high and the income level becomes broken. Maybe that needs revisited?
We don't need to talk multiples, we need to talk straight isk/hour. The payouts were too high, and now they're too low. Even though we do have a closed pool of allies to draw from, not everyone is available to run 23/7, especially during deployments. Lowsec & nullsec incursions should be balanced to pay out about as much per individual as high-end solo ratting, or else everyone is just going to go hide in their sanctums with their tengus instead of coming out to socialize. Currently, in Fountain, doing anomalies with a tengu that has fighters assigned to it can make upwards of 90m/hr. Many people who don't have a carrier have a second tengu and can make even more. CCP: We don't care what the missions are or what flaming hoops we have to jump through to get the payouts, as long as it's balanced with other forms of income. The magic number is between 80-90.
That was a comment about the ratio of highsec to nullsec payouts to make doing them in low/null worth it compared to high, not highsec worth it compared to other activities. Keeping in mind that so long as the ratio exists it will scale to the actual values the sites pay out at, this number remains entirely relevant to making sure Null/lowsec incursions are and remain worth the extra risk. All sec bands being less than worthwhile now (according to the consensus on the forums) is a separate issue. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
944
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:47:00 -
[104] - Quote
Meytal wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Perhaps because wormholes are supposed to be inherently more dangerous than k-space? Good explanation for why payouts and rewards in W-space should be higher than in K-space.
Which was, prior to Escalation, untrue!
Meytal wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:And because nullsec is inherently more dangerous than hisec? I have to take my hat off to you, sir, for the ability to say that with a straight face.
When's the last time you were locked out of being able to access any of your assets in hisec?
eh |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
944
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:48:00 -
[105] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout. Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong?
It's not even close to 50%.
eh |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:51:00 -
[106] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Incursions: Identical across all security regions with a nominal alteration in payout. Thought is was a 50% increase going from high to low/null? Do you count this as nominal or do I have the numbers wrong? It's not even close to 50%.
I may be wrong about the multiplier then. My math came out to a ~42% increase going from high to low. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
238
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:56:00 -
[107] - 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
To put it bluntly without changes to the OTA's you are NOT going to see a change in the Vanguards flooring. I can't believe you are looking at the statistics and not see how they stack and kill the Vanguard fleets.
Since you are so adament in not making any further changes right now actually listen to the feedback that has been tossed at you the past 1 and a half months I don't see the point in running Incursions and sadly watching my communities lingering death. Unsubscribing now
I know for a fact you never communicated with the head of the Armour Incursion Community "The Ditanian Fleet"( Cozmic Cowboy https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/Cozmic%20Cowboy ) and these 2 rollbacks will really not help anyone except the shiney HQ shield fleets to continue to be viable as the rest of the communities wither. From what I'm seeing in the feedback here your communications & listening to the dead NULL/LO SEC communities was either nonexistant or tossed out of hand.
The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Gunny Fury
EVE University
Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:57:00 -
[108] - Quote
Would like to say that I wish to see the vgs be turned into a intro to pve fleet action, seeing as most people would be coming in from solo mission running and be doing L3s/L4s when they begin to seriously attempt this kind of thing
which means likely a drake, or at the most a BC or low skill BS at the most.
i would suggest to tone these VG sites to be able to be ran by BCs and be blitzed with competent players, but be paid at BEST (blitzing and what nots) as a slow L4 or L3 type of income in the same sec status.
great acting as introduction and get more people doing them. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
945
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:57:00 -
[109] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:I may be wrong about the multiplier then. My math came out to a ~42% increase going from high to low.
That'd make sense if people were flying shiny fleets outside of hisec.
eh |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
200
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:00:00 -
[110] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:I may be wrong about the multiplier then. My math came out to a ~42% increase going from high to low. That'd make sense if people were flying shiny fleets outside of hisec.
Which goes back to my question, how much higher is right?
Also apparently I'm the only one who likes OTA's AND doesn't shiny fits (in highsec). |
|
|
Challu
Wishful Desires Inc.
Armada Assail
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:12:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote:
Just to clear this up again, as people seem to be confused. We weren't happy with the outcome of the changes so we are rolling back. This has absolutely nothing to do with fixing Incursions or making right or wrong changes in the future .. it is simply that once the changes hit TQ, we didn't feel they sent Incursions in a direction we want to take them - so we are reverting them. Now we will have an almost pre-escalation slate to start from and make the right changes. I have several threads of feedback and have spoken with many people about the future of Incursions and we will make a lot more threads about the changes as they progress.
Thank you for this important clarification.
Unfortunately, your confidence in "reverting them ... [to an] ... almost pre-escalation slate to start from" may be materially misplaced.
In the hierarchy of factors that have changed the nature of incursions, what you are rolling back pales in significance to the impact of the trigger changes. To genuinely make incursions "almost pre-escalation" would require a roll-back that reinstates the triggers and removes the WoW-like dungeon grinding.
Do note, I'm not necessarily advocating that rollback, just pointing out the potential hole in your assumption. |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
224
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:51:00 -
[112] - Quote
I believe they do know that the OTA's are the problem but they can't quickly fix them so they are doing these easy changes to try to help mitigate the issue.
or at least I hope
On holiday. -áIn some other world.
Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours.
To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent,
It was a sun-á |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1212
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:07:00 -
[113] - Quote
Challu wrote:CCP Affinity wrote:
Just to clear this up again, as people seem to be confused. We weren't happy with the outcome of the changes so we are rolling back. This has absolutely nothing to do with fixing Incursions or making right or wrong changes in the future .. it is simply that once the changes hit TQ, we didn't feel they sent Incursions in a direction we want to take them - so we are reverting them. Now we will have an almost pre-escalation slate to start from and make the right changes. I have several threads of feedback and have spoken with many people about the future of Incursions and we will make a lot more threads about the changes as they progress.
Thank you for this important clarification. Unfortunately, your confidence in "reverting them ... [to an] ... almost pre-escalation slate to start from" may be materially misplaced. In the hierarchy of factors that have changed the nature of incursions, what you are rolling back pales in significance to the impact of the trigger changes. To genuinely make incursions "almost pre-escalation" would require a roll-back that reinstates the triggers and removes the WoW-like dungeon grinding. Do note, I'm not necessarily advocating that rollback, just pointing out the potential hole in your assumption.
Wait, I am in support of these current rollbacks, but what exactly was not like wow dungeon grinding with pre-escalation incursions? In fact from memory I only played it briefly, but wow raids were actually considerably more difficult than pre-escalation incursions.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Sturmwolke
233
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:48:00 -
[114] - Quote
Nothing much to say, as per expected. The bar's change is significant as fleets can run at 100% nominal sooner - whether that's enough to help populate multiple incursion constellations (for high-sec), that depends on the adjustment. Else, folks will just keep running them by focusing on one constellation at a time post Inferno.
These changes might pull some VG runners back, though whether that will achieve critical mass, remains to be seen.
Also did you do a stealth change to the spawn balance for high-sec incursions? Unless it's a temp glitch, it's spawning as it should now.
More towards the Amarr region than others (due to empire size). Certainly less painful over gallavanting across the 4 regions taking turns like clockwork.
|
mumkill3r
Tribal Souls
Tribal Dragons
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:01:00 -
[115] - Quote
Something needs to change to make them worth doing again. Come on give me a reason to dust off the Vindy and make some serious isk. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
946
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:28:00 -
[116] - Quote
mumkill3r wrote:Something needs to change to make them worth doing again. Come on give me a reason to dust off the Vindy and make some serious isk.
read: "I want my risk-free isk fountain back"
eh |
Kreeia Dgore
EntroPrelatial Industria
T A B O O
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 04:14:00 -
[117] - Quote
I really wonder why they needed to tweak the incursions in the first place, besides from listening to "good friends goons". Even Dr. economist at fanfest said incursions only have a minor impact on the whole isk situation ... But hey, if CCP gets lobbed and screws something, I am glad they are capable of changing their decisions.
So it is a good thing in the end. |
Lysaeus
Lead Farmers
Kill It With Fire
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 04:18:00 -
[118] - Quote
reversing these nerfs needs to be done very very carefully. Though I really wouldn't mind the return of the mom killing fleets. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
948
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 04:30:00 -
[119] - Quote
Kreeia Dgore wrote:I really wonder why they needed to tweak the incursions in the first place
being completely unbalanced, for instance
eh |
Dalilus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 04:55:00 -
[120] - Quote
oh, wow, great.
let's keep on nerfing lvl 4 missions and not roll back the nerfs but un-nerf incursions because the alts of some nullsec alliances can no longer make enough isk in a reasonable ammount of time.
yay, way to go. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |