Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
231
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:37:00 -
[151] - Quote
Fearless M0F0 wrote:Here is an idea that you might be able to squeeze: Instead of 10% increase payout to Vanguards, just increase OTAs by let's say 50% and/or tweak they curve so a 15 pilot fleet gets full payout (they are almost as hard and take as long as assaults right now). Now, this would just be just a temporary stopgap until you can rebalance them. The idea is to make OTAs at the very least worth the grind. This change along the influence one could inject new life to all incursions short term and should be pretty easy to implement i guess, right? As far as long term, you could make payouts dynamic based on number of sites/hr completed so incursions sites left untouched slowly increase their payout while blitzing fleets get paid a little less for each site they complete.
not a good idea as fleets would have to drop/add people to accomodate OTA's
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 |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
488
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:39:00 -
[152] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:ISeeDeath wrote:From my personal view and from a lot of friends i made during making incursions this statement could not be more wrong.
What do you do in EVE with the friends you made running incursions? Besides running incursions, of course They complain about the reduced ISK/hr ratio that made them all decide that running incursions was no longer "fun".
If these "incursion communities" were a real thing they'd have stuck together after the nerf and moved on as a community to other things. We'd be hearing a constant flow of stories about how they came together and had fun and bonded, and now they're running a wormspace operation in a C5, or carving out a name for themselves in a quiet corner of Aridia or Syndicate,and how glad they were that the Incursions gave them the opportunity to meet and get to know each other. Instead they melted away overnight when the isk tap was turned down. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
General Jung
Asgard Intelligence Services Most Usual Suspects
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:05:00 -
[153] - Quote
Dear CCP,
that seems good, but there will be still the problem that larger sites won-¦t reward to effort. So it would be helpful if you add a 15% more payout for AS and 25% payout increasement for the HQ. Then lets hope that all FCs, who decide to boycott incursions will come back and that the playerbase to recruite from will be normalized through the changes you will implement. |
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:07:00 -
[154] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:ISeeDeath wrote:From my personal view and from a lot of friends i made during making incursions this statement could not be more wrong.
What do you do in EVE with the friends you made running incursions? Besides running incursions, of course They complain about the reduced ISK/hr ratio that made them all decide that running incursions was no longer "fun". If these "incursion communities" were a real thing they'd have stuck together after the nerf and moved on as a community to other things. We'd be hearing a constant flow of stories about how they came together and had fun and bonded, and now they're running a wormspace operation in a C5, or carving out a name for themselves in a quiet corner of Aridia or Syndicate,and how glad they were that the Incursions gave them the opportunity to meet and get to know each other. Instead they melted away overnight when the isk tap was turned down.
What other group PVE activity requires the same level of coordination as an Incursion? Incursion runners came together to have some fun while still retaining all of their previous friends for activities other than incursions. Being in a wormhole or going into null sec is in no way comparable to running incursions. It's apples and oranges. The next closest thing would be Lvl 4 missions, and who needs the level of coordination or help to run those. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1228
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:01:00 -
[155] - Quote
General Jung wrote:Dear CCP,
that seems good, but there will be still the problem that larger sites won-¦t reward to effort. So it would be helpful if you add a 15% more payout for AS and 25% payout increasement for the HQ. Then lets hope that all FCs, who decide to boycott incursions will come back and that the playerbase to recruite from will be normalized through the changes you will implement. So basically you want high sec incursion income to surpass low sec again?
No.
"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
201
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:26:00 -
[156] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:ISeeDeath wrote:From my personal view and from a lot of friends i made during making incursions this statement could not be more wrong.
What do you do in EVE with the friends you made running incursions? Besides running incursions, of course They complain about the reduced ISK/hr ratio that made them all decide that running incursions was no longer "fun". If these "incursion communities" were a real thing they'd have stuck together after the nerf and moved on as a community to other things. We'd be hearing a constant flow of stories about how they came together and had fun and bonded, and now they're running a wormspace operation in a C5, or carving out a name for themselves in a quiet corner of Aridia or Syndicate,and how glad they were that the Incursions gave them the opportunity to meet and get to know each other. Instead they melted away overnight when the isk tap was turned down. Just to note, some of us are still running. We may not be nearly as numerous, but we're far from completely gone.
I see many of the same people when I run, and for me there is a great deal of entertainment just sitting in TS and listening, but that doesn't mean that outside of incursions we have the same interests so far as other areas of the game are concerned.
Some came from null because even post nerf it was more fun that doing null anoms solo, others were part time WH dwellers. Some were funding ships for lowsec fun. Of those there are 2 I have no interest in so it makes little sense for me to just up and join them on a permanent basis, but we all enjoy working with each other in the activity which we commonly share. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
201
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:39:00 -
[157] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:General Jung wrote:Dear CCP,
that seems good, but there will be still the problem that larger sites won-¦t reward to effort. So it would be helpful if you add a 15% more payout for AS and 25% payout increasement for the HQ. Then lets hope that all FCs, who decide to boycott incursions will come back and that the playerbase to recruite from will be normalized through the changes you will implement. So basically you want high sec incursion income to surpass low sec again? No. If they were all increased across the board, that would still mean low/null assaults/HQ's were still paying higher.
Or is there some other issue I'm missing? |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
488
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:01:00 -
[158] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:ISeeDeath wrote:From my personal view and from a lot of friends i made during making incursions this statement could not be more wrong.
What do you do in EVE with the friends you made running incursions? Besides running incursions, of course They complain about the reduced ISK/hr ratio that made them all decide that running incursions was no longer "fun". If these "incursion communities" were a real thing they'd have stuck together after the nerf and moved on as a community to other things. We'd be hearing a constant flow of stories about how they came together and had fun and bonded, and now they're running a wormspace operation in a C5, or carving out a name for themselves in a quiet corner of Aridia or Syndicate,and how glad they were that the Incursions gave them the opportunity to meet and get to know each other. Instead they melted away overnight when the isk tap was turned down. Just to note, some of us are still running. We may not be nearly as numerous, but we're far from completely gone. My apologies, I know the few people who actually run incursions these days find it hard to get heard these days over the moneybags bandwagoners loudly proclaiming that incursions are "dead" and that unless they can make 150m/hr there's no reason whatsoever for anyone to run them ever again. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Deviana Sevidon
Jades Falcon Guards
317
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:50:00 -
[159] - Quote
The main reason why vanguard sites are disliked are the wall of OTA. You basically gave the Override Transfer Array a triple nerf/buff that makes the sites not only take longer but they seem to switch targets more often, together with even more remote repair for the rats, very few players still want to do the sites anymore.
So after a few incursions, NCO and NMC also take longer but are still manageable, the fleet is confronted with a wall of OTAs no one wants to do.
....as if 10,058 Goon voices cried out and were suddenly silenced. |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
378
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:43:00 -
[160] - 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. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:47:00 -
[161] - Quote
Xorv wrote: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. Incursions that loose Concord protection are inherently not highsec incursions. Either way you are asking for the same thing. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:00:00 -
[162] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Cathrine Kenchov wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:So now you've destroyed the (already terrible) war dec system, you're following up with winding back high sec nerfs? Nice one CCP.
While I agree with the incursion bar changes, buffing isk reward in high sec is simply a quick fix. One that in the long run is just going to continue turning older players away from the game. Because that's the same dev team, right? Jesus you high sec people get bitter easy On the feedback side of things, thanks for still watching this ccp, though I do fear this may not be enough of a buff, especially when considering OTA's. And given the large nerf that was random triggers, I would have like to see an overall buff to payouts, instead of just vanguards. I think at the end of the day, we were unhappy with the way the changes turned out and now we're going to kill them. These are stopgaps though, we'll need to do some larger remodeling but that has to go on another timescale than "next week".
The problem had to have been obvious for quite some time I think you saw it rather quickly and started a thread in Missions& Complexes weeks before Inferno came out. Do you really still think these 2 rolebacks are the reason why Vanguards floored so completely? The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1228
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:09:00 -
[163] - Quote
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
"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 |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:38:00 -
[164] - Quote
" But the fact remains that CCP essentially murdered what was previously a growing, vibrant player community. " http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2012/06/rollback.html The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1228
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:40:00 -
[165] - Quote
Are you literally at the point now where you are just copy pasting?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1470742#post1470742
"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 |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
379
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:24:00 -
[166] - 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!
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:41:00 -
[167] - Quote
Xorv wrote: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! The scope of your argument puts it well past the realm of incursions and does little to acclimate to the type of change you want. You are literally talking about changing the rules of engagement around a person with no warning of any kind. If it should be decided that a change from current mechanics is needed it should be announced and allow people the opportunity for people to prepare.
Additionally, highsec without concord is still functionally lowsec. The dynamic creation of lowsec doesn't change the way that people do and will react to that type of space. The only likely difference will be the people caught with their pants down by early responders hunting prey that didn't and couldn't see it coming. Other than that we have all the aspects that make lowsec underutilized, should those that live there be believed, exasperated by the fact that moving to the constellation is still a "safe" trip.
Without any specific stated mechanics regarding your other suggestion they cannot be criticized, but it bears mentioning that CCP denounces the idea of a totally safe highsec as is. Regardless of player misconceptions this has not changed. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
243
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 05:24:00 -
[168] - Quote
6 hours before downtime the Maddam Vanguard systems have 25 OTAs 2 NMC's and a single NCO There's the Vanguard balancing created by the Escalaion NERF and why they have floored for the most part CCP Soundwave. Maddam's Sansha influence 0% the rest of the Incursions thoughout Eve 100% I hope the rest of the TDF FC's don't burn out like I did. The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:06:00 -
[169] - Quote
More ISK sink ? |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
103
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:44:00 -
[170] - Quote
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. |
|
General Jung
Asgard Intelligence Services Most Usual Suspects
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:04:00 -
[171] - Quote
Dear Simi Kusoni,
Simi Kusoni wrote:General Jung wrote:Dear CCP,
that seems good, but there will be still the problem that larger sites won-¦t reward to effort. So it would be helpful if you add a 15% more payout for AS and 25% payout increasement for the HQ. Then lets hope that all FCs, who decide to boycott incursions will come back and that the playerbase to recruite from will be normalized through the changes you will implement. So basically you want high sec incursion income to surpass low sec again? No. This will be much lesser then before the nerf of death. And it will complete the goal CCP had, with bringing more people into larger sites. But there are currently 2 major problems for larger sites:
1. Too small playerbase to recruite from 2. Payout not really more or less then small VGs
And last but not least, of course a 20+ man fleet should have the possibility to earn more money as a singleplayer in lowsec. Becuase Highsec does not mean there is less risk. |
Krystyn
Serenity Rising LLC Vanguard.
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:33:00 -
[172] - 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 -
[173] - 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 |
Kayrl Bheskagor
Hedion University Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:19:00 -
[174] - Quote
CCP Affinity wrote:These are just short term fixes to get us back to a place where people are happier with Incursions. We will look at further changes in the future - one step at a time.
One step at a time? Really?? "One step at a time" would have sounded like sense IF you actually had done that. "One step at a time" would have been:
- the players have to kill ALL the rats to progress to progress to the next wave
or
- the waves spawn in random rat orders and numbers
or
- the rat trigger for the next wave is randomly assigned to a different one for each new wave
Doesn't take an economist or statistician guru to see how any of those would limit the completions and payouts.
Even using a couple of these would have been close to "one step". In standard CCP "tweaking" of late, typically ignoring the players actually USING that aspect of the game, and only listening to the NERF screamers, you destroyed the incursion community. Now though, you've decided to take "one step" and put it back the way it could have been, would have been, and was suggested. You bunch need to learn about the concept of "moderation" instead of "break it for no intelligent reason, **** players/CUSTOMERS off, then roll back and do what they SAID to do in the FIRST place" methodology. Pretty much EXACTLY the same moderation that you bunch DIDN'T use on that useless inventory change and STILL haven't fixed.
Bravo. |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:02:00 -
[175] - Quote
First, a note to all the people in this thread who are angry. It's a game, get over yourselves please. I understand the frustration some of you probably feel, and I agree that the way Incursions have been iterated on was not very desirable to a significant portion of the player base, but raging at Devs isn't going to fix that. CCP has plenty of other things on their plate, and a constant stream of accusations and rage from people in threads like this isn't going to do anything positive for Incursions or the game as a whole.
TL;DR - Chill people.
Now, this is probably going to be a fairly long post, and I'm starting with a basic disclosure about my experience with Incursions. I was part of the group withing the CFC which used to run lowsec incursions with (fairly) shiny T3s and assault frigs. It's going to sound like a hollow claim that the previous fact doesn't have any bearing on the suggesting I will make below that Incursions should be lowsec only, but I assure you, it's true. I also truly feel that Incursions do bring together a "community" of people, or at least they did for my coalition, but that does not necessarily mean that "community" will come together for other activities. Incursions draw a specific type of players in terms of mentality and resources, and a certain type of character in terms of skill points and SP distribution.
TL;DR - I'm part of the CFC Incursioning group. but I love Incursions in general and don't think that biases me too much.
The current state of Incursions is something I consider lamentable, but I am not in favor or a rollback to the previous state of the mechanics either. I see both mechanical and lore problems with current Incursions, and because some of my suggestions stem from both of those factors, I will discuss them together.
Suggestion 1: Incursions should be unique to lowsec. - Reason 1 (mechanics): Incursions were (to some extent still are), and should be fairly significant sources of income for the players running them. They need to be balanced based on the security of the space they are in, but to balance them for high and nullsec would (in my opinion) leave only the current option, which is to make them pay too little to compete with other forms of income in those areas. - Reason 2 (lore): Someone can correct me on this, as I'm sure to get some details wrong simply because of the vast amount of EVE lore that exists out there, but the base principle of this argument is that I do not feel Incursions in space other than lowsec make sense. Sansha tech used in Incursions is specifically designed to combat capsuleers, which means that conventional ships controlled by the Empires would function normally in "Incursioned" systems, and the forces encountered in Incursion sites are not formidable enough for me to believe that the Empires could not deal with them. On the other hand, nullsec, while lacking the NPC forces of hisec, is not (as far as I understand from lore) of interest to Sansha Kuveki. Attacking nullsec systems would not spread fear in the Empires, and nullsec planets are not as densely populated.
Suggestion 2: Alternatively to suggestion 1, Incursions could be balanced uniquely for each security type. - Reason 1 (mechanics): Essentially the same as covered above, Incursions in each security type should be balanced for income and challenge, according to the other activities available in that security type. - Reason 2 (lore): Sansha should have different goals for attacking each security type. Hisec could be small terrorist attacks; quick enough to hit and run before the empires can respond, but still frightening, while nullsec could see more mining and production related activities, as resources are more abundant there, and time should (theoretically) be less of a constraint. Lowsec Incursions could remain largely the same, as they best fit the lore. They are Kuveki's way of striking at the empire and capsuleers simultaneously, while also attacking highly inhabited planets.
Suggestion 3: Scout sites need to be rewarding, or to be removed. - Reason (mechanics): As CCP have already acknowledged, these sites are not really run by anyone, because they are not worth running. I believe they need a new set of mechanics, because (due to the nature of frigates currently available) they cannot be balanced around the same types of fleets (logi and dps) that run other sites. Perhaps they could be balanced for T1 cruisers, with an eye looking forward to the new frigates we will be seeing in the near future.
Suggestion 4: "Pioson" is bad. - Reason (mechanics): The fact that one out of three sites for each Vanguards and Assaults currently is extremely impractical to run combined with the fact that sites are spawned randomly to populate a system is a poor mechanical choice. Currently, it is very exaggerated by the fact that the "poison" sites are so slow to run with even a specialized fleet that they are not reasonably profitable, but even before the changes NMCs and NCNs were just plain annoying sites. However, I actually applaud the fact that one single fleet type does not optimally run all three sites, but I think this would be better accomplished by having two of each of the three sites encourage a distinctly different combat style, while the third could be run by either or both. For (not a very good) example, if the one of the other two Assault sites strongly rewarded players for NOT using BSs, NCNs could be run two at a time by one full group of BSs and one full group of non-BSs working together. Additionally, I believe that a system should not be able to spawn a full set of one type of site. If this idea was taken to its logical extreme, I would be very pleased to see a combination of site types spanning Vanguards through Headquarters that encourage different fleet comps that can also be exchanged, split, or combined to move between different site spawns and types.
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1238
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:34:00 -
[176] - Quote
General Jung wrote:Dear Simi Kusoni, Simi Kusoni wrote:General Jung wrote:Dear CCP,
that seems good, but there will be still the problem that larger sites won-¦t reward to effort. So it would be helpful if you add a 15% more payout for AS and 25% payout increasement for the HQ. Then lets hope that all FCs, who decide to boycott incursions will come back and that the playerbase to recruite from will be normalized through the changes you will implement. So basically you want high sec incursion income to surpass low sec again? No. This will be much lesser then before the nerf of death. And it will complete the goal CCP had, with bringing more people into larger sites. But there are currently 2 major problems for larger sites: 1. Too small playerbase to recruite from 2. Payout not really more or less then small VGs And last but not least, of course a 20+ man fleet should have the possibility to earn more money as a singleplayer in lowsec. Becuase Highsec does not mean there is less risk. And yet... There is less risk.
Also, nice post Xavier.
"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
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:01:00 -
[177] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:And yet... There is less risk. Which is why low/null would be making more. As it's currently setup and thing that boosts site rewards boosts low/null proportionally more than high.
|
Renn Veidai
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:04:00 -
[178] - Quote
No no no no no no no.
Kill the isk by half, return to the original npc kill / trigger order. Sure, these changes have controlled the ISK, but make incursions almost unattainable for non-specialist fleets.
That, or go in and add a different form of fun pve you can do with random people. Incursions as they are and as they are planned are dead. |
chris1945
Ambivalence Co-operative Black Thorne Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 07:31:00 -
[179] - Quote
Rolling back the 10% doesn't change really much. - Fix OTA - Boost Assaults and HQ rewards
AS and HQ pay too less compared to VG. They are more risk, need more people, need more work, need more attention. So they should pay better. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1238
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 07:41:00 -
[180] - Quote
chris1945 wrote:Rolling back the 10% doesn't change really much. - Fix OTA - Boost Assaults and HQ rewards
AS and HQ pay too less compared to VG. They are more risk, need more people, need more work, need more attention. So they should pay better. If you want AS and HQ to pay out more than VGs then nerf VG income. Oh wait, they already did that and everyone stopped running them because they just go for the FoTM.
"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 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |