| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Evi Polevhia
N.E.R.O. Inc.
6
   |
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:46:00 -
[1] - Quote
As the game currently is there are two main respawn mechanisms in Incursions.
1: Mothership Cleared: When the Mothership (The boss of the Incursion constellation) is dropped, all sites in every system in that Incursion despawn immediately and the Sansha Incursion ships warp off. If you are not finished with the site, tough cookies, it's gone. All beacons dissapear.
2: Site Cleared: This is when a site's objectives have been fulfilled. For example in a True Power Provisional Headquarters, killing the tower at the very end. If you are in a site where it's possible to finish the objective without killing the remaining rats (such as a True Creations Research Center), they do stick around for a while after the site is 'ended' and the victorious fleet recieves their pay from CONCORD. Like the Mothership clear though, the beacons to warp to the site from anywhere else in the system dissapear, making it impossible to find that spot again without scanning down wrecks/occupants/remaining rats.
However, one of the biggest differences is when Case 1 happens (The Mothership is destroyed) the game follows it's normal mechanics for spawning a new Incursion. But when Case 2 happens, a new site in that system will not spawn unless everyone who was in that site leaves grid. This includes both in the site with the rats, and on grid with the acceleration gate. This leads to two problems.
AFK
If for some reason someone goes AFK due to being forgetful, or family problems, or just simply fell asleep and it doesn't happen to be a dangerous site upon completion then it's quite possible if you're not able to squad/wing/fleet warp the person out for them to keep that site from respawning. They will drift about in grid until they disconnect or return to their computer, meanwhile preventing everyone else in system from having access to the site that should have respawned.
Intentional Site Holding
Originally considered to be a form of piracy/ransom, there are people who will create days old character to simply go sit on acceleration gates in heavily Incursioned systems and demand a payment per site they allow to respawn. Both their Rookie Ship and Capsule are sufficient to keep these sites from respawning. And due to CONCORD's swift reaction time always when you don't want it, it can take 2 suicide ganks to fully remove a day old character in a free ship from a gate.
However I said originally considered to be a form of piracy because Piracy in EVE generally involves a few things. Risk and Isk mostly. This person takes no risk. I can literally do the same thing they do on alts I created seconds ago. There is no cost in what they do. And as far as Isk goes, I've spoken with a GM and been advised to not pay.
GM Cloudy wrote:Paying the ransom is never suggested if those players are also blackmailing and it is not guaranteed that they will leave.
Still with me? Awesome. I swear I'm getting to the suggestion.
Simple as this. Why can't Case 1 respawn be applied to Case 2 respawn? The Mothership doesn't care who's on what grid. When the site is over, despawning is applied. Respawn of new Incursion goes through the appropriate mechanics. Same can be done for the individual sites. Mission objective completed and pay out is given? Despawn what is necissary and begin respawn mechanics. I'm not alone in this thought either.
GM Cloudy wrote:Making adjustment to incursion sites is probably a much better solution. It will probably benefit most players better if incursion sites could despwan as soon as they are finished, regardless of the presence of players at the first gate.
This will not unbalance the game in any way it wasn't already unbalanced before. This simply unifies mechanics and prevents respawn problems caused both by intentional and unintentional issues.
Edit: If GM Cloudy has issue with me quoting him, or if for some reason there is an issue with me quoting him, I will edit it out. I am not trying to say his opinion represents that of the GM staff or CCP in general. |
Admiral Dubar
Protectors Holdings
CORE Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
Good idea |
Nara Arramor
Krynntovations
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
well said, bringing the gates in line with other examples within the game and its mechanics seems like a sensible solution that has been thoroughly petitioned |
Khuri
Old Galactic Earth Regiment
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
+1. This needs to be sorted. |
Hana Matsumoto
N.E.R.O. Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Gåæ This. Totally this.
One point to add. This is by not means piracy. Is Eve not a roleplaying game? How is abusing the way the game works by any means playing the role of a pirate?
Example:
Sansha see's a small rookie ship. They are just gonna laugh and stomp the little rookie to the ground. A single small ship that couldn't even scratch their shields would not stop them from invading a new site in the system.
So fix the problem. |
Ubu
Colonial Fleet Services
Independent Faction
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Risk versus reward. We can argue all day about how much risk for how much reward but I think we all agree there should always be risk for reward.
This needs to be addressed. |
Evi Polevhia
N.E.R.O. Inc.
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Risk for reward is everywhere in EVE. I have no problem with that. I've seen friends in shiny Incursion ships get popped just for going through the wrong 0.5 Maybe Incursion runners get killed 10x less often but they lose 10x as much, so there's that.
But a site blocker or AFKer can risk free prevent sites from respawning at minimal or zero profit, most often net negative profit to the whole of the peoples involved. This isn't piracy, it's not part of how the game was intended, it's simply an issue that needs to be addressed. |
Ted Stinger
Black Lagoon Society.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
Absolutely +1
Not sure, if it is an exploit, but it is definitely not working as intended. |
Evi Polevhia
N.E.R.O. Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:36:00 -
[9] - Quote
I've heard it be said that this is Piracy in EVE, intentionally holding sites open. If that's the case then shouldn't people who hold open completed sites be flagged yellow? You cannot have it be Piracy and not Piracy at the same time.
Granted I don't want complications to Crimewatch. I want to keep that system as clear and simple as possible. Best solution seems to be a unification of the despawn mechanics from Case 1 to Case 2, making a completed site force full despawn and initiate respawn timer. |
Jessy Berbers
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
Disturbed Acquaintance
63
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
This is plain and simple an exploit, and dont let any wanabe pirate who avoids agressive repercussions hiding behind concord tell you otherwise.
My idea to solve this is pretty simple, place 1 or 2 incursion rats in the site that cause the site to actually despawn after X time.
The time ofcourse being upto CCP as a balancing issue, plain and simple fix, no more hiding behind concord as a so called fake pirate. |
|
|
Evi Polevhia
N.E.R.O. Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jessy Berbers wrote:This is plain and simple an exploit, and dont let any wanabe pirate who avoids agressive repercussions hiding behind concord tell you otherwise.
My idea to solve this is pretty simple, place 1 or 2 incursion rats in the site that cause the site to actually despawn after X time.
The time ofcourse being upto CCP as a balancing issue, plain and simple fix, no more hiding behind concord as a so called fake pirate.
This could cause other problems.
When would these ships spawn. Would ending the site due to timer earlier then the objective is completed mean that the people in site won't get paid? Or will they get paid early? If you're going to put a timer despawn on it, why not make the timer start once payout is given? |
Evi Polevhia
N.E.R.O. Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
I've recently heard that capsules do not in fact hold sites open from one person, and that they do from another. Not sure which is the case so if I'm in error earlier by saying they hold sites open, my apologies. Also I have heard rumor that cloaked ships too do not hold sites open. I would like to know why CCP thinks some types should and some should not, if this is an intended or accidental mechanic. This clarification can help us reach a resolution I think. |
Katarina Musana
Phyrean Logistics Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
This is definitely a flawed mechanic. The only site that has any legitimate reason to be "held open" at all is the TCRC and that's only if the fleet wants to take out the rest of the rats before leaving. As far as I'm aware, though, there are essentially no fleets that do that. It's inefficient, with nothing but risk and no reward. There being a delay before it despawns is fine so that we still have to take the "risk" involved in warping out with enemy ships still on grid.
However, sites being kept open by the presence of ships just makes no real sense. Does Sansha have to salvage all the structures from a previous site before they have the resources to set up a new site? Are they that desperate for resources? |
Petra Hakaari
Stalking Wolfpack
Freek Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 21:33:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1 |
AJ Kazakov
Bulgarian Experienced Crackers
GaNg BaNg TeAm
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 21:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
+1 |
Umedon
United Researchers Association
Omega Vector
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 22:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
+1 |
Ieze Svain
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 22:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
+1
Very well thought out idea. |
mando222
Cross Fire Mining and Exploration
Black Core Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 23:00:00 -
[18] - Quote
I need to say that i agree. The mechanic needs some work and your solution looks sound. |
Inflatable Girlfriend
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 23:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
It is ridiculous that an unpaid trial can totally disrupt the game play of 100's of paid accounts by simply being afk in a free rookie ship
this really needs to be fixed. |
Ronan Davaham
Corporate Disaster
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 23:51:00 -
[20] - Quote
+1 |
|
|
Obvious Pun
X-Ward
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 00:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
A much-needed change that's been ignored or in the works for quite a bit too long now. |
Felix Oskold
League of Ordinary Jedi
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 01:14:00 -
[22] - Quote
+1
Brilliant solution to a problem that shouldn't have existed in the first place |
Nolak Ataru
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 01:34:00 -
[23] - Quote
+2 |
Ice-T
The Ruling Company
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 02:56:00 -
[24] - Quote
+1 needs a fix. |
marVLs
98
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 09:33:00 -
[25] - Quote
Seriously CCP, there's a bad bug in da game that need to be fixed ASAP
+1 |
BulletMagnetMan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
+1 |
Bent Makbema
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:24:00 -
[27] - Quote
How to make ISK
Create 10 new accounts to keep incursions sites from spawning. Names each account, something to do with incursions, example anti spawn demon. Lets not forget your not paying to play EVE.
Now Create another account to spam and beg for isk in channels.
Rinse and Repeat , isk value 500 million a day
|
APHRATTOS
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:20:00 -
[28] - Quote
+1
There should be more pluses.
From edit it seems that michael bolton read first post....
Basically it is a bug being exploited.
Most mmo have group pve. Incursions seems to have been introduced into eve as a group pve feature.
If any mmo had a situation where no new instances could spawn because someone was stuck in a completed instance rational people would consider that to be a bug.
The trolling and counter trolling for lutz just confuses people it seems and people then think that things are something that they are not.
It is really very simple. |
Ice-T
8
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:54:00 -
[29] - Quote
Finally, thank you CCP. http://community.eveonline.com/news/newsFromEve.asp?newsTitle=incursion-site-exploit-notification |
Hana Matsumoto
N.E.R.O. Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:06:00 -
[30] - Quote
Victory! |
|
|
Ieze Svain
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:22:00 -
[31] - Quote
Glad that Evi got a response to this. |
Evi Polevhia
N.E.R.O. Inc.
19
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:40:00 -
[32] - Quote
Holy crap. That was pretty good response time. First I'd like to apologize to CCP Dolan, GM Cloudy, and CCP in general for posting something I was not supposed to. I'm not that familiar with EVE Forums outside of the IGS. (Though if GM Cloudy is allowed to I'd love for him to come in and say those things himself so that they are on the record in a forum post)
However, while I did shout for joy thanks to (that magnificent man) CCP Falcon's posting, I would like to remind everyone that this only fixes part of the problem that my original post addresses. The respawn mechanics for Incursion sites are still easily and accidentally messed with. I still maintain that whenever possible, the respawn needs to be changed so that when a site is completed, it begins to despawn as normal.
Now there are sites that when completed still have rats on grid (Example: True Creations Research Center). Could not possibly a timer be added so when payout is given, it will force despawn in say 2-10 minutes? If I remember correctly exploration sites when scanned down despawn either when completed or after a timer expires that is started when a person ends the site. Wouldn't that same mechanic be able to be applied to an incursion site? This would prevent there from having to be petitions and begging GM's to deal with griefers and exploiters, the game mechanics would solve the issue on it's own when the site automatically despawns. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |