EVE Search - PROPOSAL - incursion system overhaul

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

PROPOSAL - incursion system overhaul

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 6	Posted - 2011.11.10 00:34:00 - [1] - Quote *current state* payout: lets face it HS payouts are generously high for the risk involved over the time taken to smash a site. Vanguard fleets (competent ones) can smash an average of 8 of the NCO/NMCs in a 60 min cycle. this nets each player in the fleet an average of 87.5mill per hour. that is an estimated 875 million ISK added to the economy every hour. with an average of 10 fleets doing this in one contested constellation the estimated ISK dumped in to game is 8.75 billion ISK. Risk V Reward there are 2 risk factors: loss of ship to sansha (negated by competent logistics) loss of ship to the Sansha loyalists ( other players) (negated by Intel channels and incursion channels) so if you have the right stuff there is pretty much no risk. . . *Proposed change* split incursions in to 3 types green - high sec amber - low sec crimson - null sec each type of incursion will have its own "END REWARD" current UBER items are the shadow FB BPC and the reverent BPC add a fighter BPC for a new sansha fighter the ISK payout for the 3 types incursion profiles would also change: high sec would be half of current payout (ISK) low sec would take on the current high sec payout profile (ISK) null sec would remain unchanged (ISK) NEW SITES: add new BELT sites to all incursion systems (scaled to system incursion profile) and add an LP payout for them also (not ISK) add new GREEN sites for HS incursions keep current incursion sites for AMBER sites add new CRIMSON sites for null sec RANDOM EVENTS (constellation wide): add random events to incursion constellations like: CRIMSON site in XXX system in GREEN constellation SANSHA staging station located at XXX planet in XXX sys these events would be sites in them selvs, but there payout would be, 1.5 times the constellation rate in ISK and LP in the case of a site from a higher incursion band the payout would be the same as the payout for compleating it in its own band IE: cromson site in a GREEN constellation would payout at a CRIMSON constellation level RANDOM EVENTS (site specific) add random site events like: elite SANSHA spawns SANSHA FBs entering a sight SANSHA slaver ships entering site these site events would increase the LP payout if delt with. any thaughts? comments?
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 129	Posted - 2011.11.10 00:38:00 - [2] - Quote Large payout reduction for highsec is already in effect. Rest is convoluted and unneeded changes that serve no purpose. Not supported.
Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 6	Posted - 2011.11.10 00:48:00 - [3] - Quote Goose99 wrote: Large payout reduction for highsec is already in effect. Rest is convoluted and unneeded changes that serve no purpose. Not supported. in effect as on TQ or a suggested add in the winter expansion? . in response to the added ideas. the main change would need to be: Quote: the ISK payout for the 3 types incursion profiles would also change: high sec would be half of current payout (ISK) low sec would take on the current high sec payout profile (ISK) null sec would remain unchanged (ISK) the rest of the fluff on the page was to facilitate the risk V reward balance that currently is not present in high sec incursions
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 129	Posted - 2011.11.10 00:54:00 - [4] - Quote Dark Drifter wrote: Goose99 wrote: Large payout reduction for highsec is already in effect. Rest is convoluted and unneeded changes that serve no purpose. Not supported. in effect as on TQ or a suggested add in the winter expansion? . in response to the added ideas. the main change would need to be: Quote: the ISK payout for the 3 types incursion profiles would also change: high sec would be half of current payout (ISK) low sec would take on the current high sec payout profile (ISK) null sec would remain unchanged (ISK) the rest of the fluff on the page was to facilitate the risk V reward balance that currently is not present in high sec incursions In effect as in TQ. There's the lower reward in both isk and LP, plus lack of mom bpc drop in highsec.
FloppieTheBanjoClown Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 273	Posted - 2011.11.10 01:08:00 - [5] - Quote Something I posted on my blog: SanshaGÇÖs Nation has invaded and occupied the constellation. CONCORD doesnGÇÖt have the firepower to deal with the incursion alone and has called on capsuleers to help. In return for the aid of capsuleer fleets, CONCORD offers rich rewards in the form of isk and loyalty points. Makes sense so far, right? The problem is, those capsuleers donGÇÖt do what CONCORD asked. Instead of hastily repelling the incursion, most of the pilots who arrive only care to fight in small groups against the Vanguard sites, where they can make the most isk. The Sansha headquarters and mothership are ignored far longer than is necessary, because they arenGÇÖt the easy money. I donGÇÖt know about you, but if I were CONCORD I would be rather unhappy with these guys IGÇÖd hired to help clean up the mess. To fix incursions in a way that would be consistent with the lore, my suggestion is simple: make CONCORD impatient. It works something like this: Extended farming of vanguard sites results in diminishing payouts over time. The longer the incursion lasts, the less valuable vanguard sites become. This is due to CONCORD wanting capsuleers to resolve the Sansha invasion rather than making sport of the small Sansha fleets. I would suggest keeping the current payout as the top level, with a 10% drop per day until it hits 60% for the last half of the incursionGÇÖs natural lifetime. At 60 million isk per hour incursions would still pay more than any other highsec activity. The payout for the mothership could drop over time as well, creating a compelling reason for taking on the mothership quickly. Put a hard cap on the payout for an entire incursion. Each highsec incursion is worth X isk/LPs, once that is used up the incursion disappears. Not all of those have to go together. I think we could get by with just #1 and just see how it affects the economy. Another idea might be to simply renorm the payouts so that vanguards pay less across the board, with the larger sites being increased.
Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 6	Posted - 2011.11.10 01:14:00 - [6] - Quote ok i think that you have missed my point by a large margin to boot. first of all: the current LP / ISK payout for a HS VANGUARD site is (presuming maximum of 10 in fleet) 10.5 million ISK 2500 concord LP this is what it was at incursion release and this is what it is at now (payouts have not been NERFED) and as stated in my opening post people run an average of 8 of these sites in an hour. the primary objective of this proposal is to address the lack of Risk over the rewards gained thus the below change would first and foremost address the fact that an ob-seen amount ISK is being printed (all-be it through combat) at little to no risk to the player the ISK payout for the 3 types incursion profiles would also change: high sec would be half of current payout (ISK) low sec would take on the current high sec payout profile (ISK) null sec would remain unchanged (ISK)
Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 27	Posted - 2011.11.10 01:44:00 - [7] - Quote Why is everyone all of a sudden interested in how other people play EVE and demanding they have risk attached to everything? Seems to be a thing on these forums that hi sec activities make too much isk so nerf everything to hell. Nerfing everything in hi sec will only lead to bored players leaving EVE. I know!! there's not enough challenge in low/null so I suggest to increase the risk versus the insane amount of isk they can make from plexes/ratting/moon goo that all rats in low/null be given the same stats as CONCORD. There, now I support this proposal. Give all parts of eve massive risks versus rewards and everyone is happy, amiright? I am also going to have a wild stab in the dark that the OP isn't one of the incursion runners. What next? No farming level 4 missions? No plexes outside of null? No-one allowed to earn more than 10 isk per hour until they move to null? How about you play EVE your way and let others play it their way? I give up. Can only hope CCP ignores threads like these. EDIT Oh and before the OP screams incursionbear! I have never run an incursion and don't intend too, no matter how much isk it pays in any security level of space.
FloppieTheBanjoClown Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 273	Posted - 2011.11.10 03:17:00 - [8] - Quote Smiling Menace wrote: Why is everyone all of a sudden interested in how other people play EVE and demanding they have risk attached to everything? Seems to be a thing on these forums that hi sec activities make too much isk so nerf everything to hell. Nerfing everything in hi sec will only lead to bored players leaving EVE. I know!! there's not enough challenge in low/null so I suggest to increase the risk versus the insane amount of isk they can make from plexes/ratting/moon goo that all rats in low/null be given the same stats as CONCORD. There, now I support this proposal. Give all parts of eve massive risks versus rewards and everyone is happy, amiright? I am also going to have a wild stab in the dark that the OP isn't one of the incursion runners. What next? No farming level 4 missions? No plexes outside of null? No-one allowed to earn more than 10 isk per hour until they move to null? How about you play EVE your way and let others play it their way? I give up. Can only hope CCP ignores threads like these. EDIT Oh and before the OP screams incursionbear! I have never run an incursion and don't intend too, no matter how much isk it pays in any security level of space. No one in this thread is telling incursioners to do anything else. No one is saying "play Eve my way" or anything like that. People are making over 100M isk per hour in highsec vanguards. That's the same level of income one can get in much more dangerous nullsec activities. THAT is why we have a problem with highsec incursions. They are imbalanced and pay out rewards that do not reflect the risk and effort that goes into them. This in a game that for eight years has portrayed itself as one where risk is REQUIRED before reward.
Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 28	Posted - 2011.11.10 03:44:00 - [9] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Smiling Menace wrote: Why is everyone all of a sudden interested in how other people play EVE and demanding they have risk attached to everything? Seems to be a thing on these forums that hi sec activities make too much isk so nerf everything to hell. Nerfing everything in hi sec will only lead to bored players leaving EVE. I know!! there's not enough challenge in low/null so I suggest to increase the risk versus the insane amount of isk they can make from plexes/ratting/moon goo that all rats in low/null be given the same stats as CONCORD. There, now I support this proposal. Give all parts of eve massive risks versus rewards and everyone is happy, amiright? I am also going to have a wild stab in the dark that the OP isn't one of the incursion runners. What next? No farming level 4 missions? No plexes outside of null? No-one allowed to earn more than 10 isk per hour until they move to null? How about you play EVE your way and let others play it their way? I give up. Can only hope CCP ignores threads like these. EDIT Oh and before the OP screams incursionbear! I have never run an incursion and don't intend too, no matter how much isk it pays in any security level of space. No one in this thread is telling incursioners to do anything else. No one is saying "play Eve my way" or anything like that. People are making over 100M isk per hour in highsec vanguards. That's the same level of income one can get in much more dangerous nullsec activities. THAT is why we have a problem with highsec incursions. They are imbalanced and pay out rewards that do not reflect the risk and effort that goes into them. This in a game that for eight years has portrayed itself as one where risk is REQUIRED before reward. But you already said in your OP that they do run the risk of losing their ships in the incursion sites and it's only down to good logistic pilots that they don't. The risk is already there. So are you penalising good team work and good logistic piloting? I think what you are really complaining about is the 100mil isk per hour, not the fact that there isn't any/enough risk. A stealth whine that carebears earn too much. And you are dictating to people how they play EVE. If you get your way and nerf the hell out of incursions to the extent they are no longer really worthwhile, then people in hi sec stop running them and another part of the game is taken away from them. Would you spend and hour or more shooting at rats to get virtually nothing in return? No? Well then why should anyone else be expected to do this? Leave hi sec alone. It's fine the way it is. Buff low and null sec instead to make people want to leave hi sec to do something more lucrative or interesting.
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 132	Posted - 2011.11.10 06:33:00 - [10] - Quote Dark Drifter wrote: ok i think that you have missed my point by a large margin to boot. first of all: the current LP / ISK payout for a HS VANGUARD site is (presuming maximum of 10 in fleet) 10.5 million ISK 2500 concord LP this is what it was at incursion release and this is what it is at now (payouts have not been NERFED) and as stated in my opening post people run an average of 8 of these sites in an hour. the primary objective of this proposal is to address the lack of Risk over the rewards gained thus the below change would first and foremost address the fact that an ob-seen amount ISK is being printed (all-be it through combat) at little to no risk to the player the ISK payout for the 3 types incursion profiles would also change: high sec would be half of current payout (ISK) low sec would take on the current high sec payout profile (ISK) null sec would remain unchanged (ISK) You do realize that number is only partial pay, right? Go to lowsec if you want to see full pay. And no, half of what is already partial pay in highsec is too low, and putting current highsec partial pay in lowsec is too low. Stop trying to nerf everything that you don't understand, and stop trying to dedicate how others play when you don't understand.

Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 6	Posted - 2011.11.10 09:38:00 - [11] - Quote Quote: You do realize that number is only partial pay, right? Go to lowsec if you want to see full pay. And no, half of what is already partial pay in highsec is too low, and putting current highsec partial pay in lowsec is too low. Stop trying to nerf everything that you don't understand, and stop trying to dedicate how others play when you don't understand. ok... you obviously still are missing the point... the RISK you run when it comes to losing ships in PVE activity is 0% (as long as you know what you are doing and dont LEROY JENKINS your self out of stupidity) thus no incursion runner should ever lose a ship. especially now that running the VANGUARDS has been perfected. what im trying to say is that IN HIGH SEC THERE IS "NO" RISK TO THE PLAYER FOR RUNNING THE INCURSIONS, AND THAT THE REWARD IS TO HIGH. the primary proposed change would: first: bring the levels of ISK, currently being injected in to EVE via HS INCURSIONS, down to a more economic friendly level second: make NULL the place to make bank in incursions, while keeping BPC drops to LOW SEC third: keeping LP payouts the same would make HS INCURSIONS more about the LP and SEC grinding as far as the "I DON'T KNOW THAT IM TALKING ABOUT" comment you made. i have a good understanding of current HS INCURSION VANGUARD risks and payouts. ]on the point of lack of reward... at 50% of current HS VANGUARD payout. 1 site would be : 5.25 million and 2.5k LP 8 sites in 1 hour: 42million isk and 20k LP total fleet: 1 site: 52.5 million and 25k LP 8 sites: 525 million and 250k LP i would like to think that that is still a V generous payout for running a HS VANGUARD site FYI: i relay do suck at PVE in EVE and as yet "touch wood" i have not lost my marauder or logistics ship in any incursion site i have been in
Thredd Necro Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2011.11.10 09:44:00 - [12] - Quote FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Smiling Menace wrote: Why is everyone all of a sudden interested in how other people play EVE and demanding they have risk attached to everything? Seems to be a thing on these forums that hi sec activities make too much isk so nerf everything to hell. Nerfing everything in hi sec will only lead to bored players leaving EVE. I know!! there's not enough challenge in low/null so I suggest to increase the risk versus the insane amount of isk they can make from plexes/ratting/moon goo that all rats in low/null be given the same stats as CONCORD. There, now I support this proposal. Give all parts of eve massive risks versus rewards and everyone is happy, amiright? I am also going to have a wild stab in the dark that the OP isn't one of the incursion runners. What next? No farming level 4 missions? No plexes outside of null? No-one allowed to earn more than 10 isk per hour until they move to null? How about you play EVE your way and let others play it their way? I give up. Can only hope CCP ignores threads like these. EDIT Oh and before the OP screams incursionbear! I have never run an incursion and don't intend too, no matter how much isk it pays in any security level of space. No one in this thread is telling incursioners to do anything else. No one is saying "play Eve my way" or anything like that. People are making over 100M isk per hour in highsec vanguards. That's the same level of income one can get in much more dangerous nullsec activities. THAT is why we have a problem with highsec incursions. They are imbalanced and pay out rewards that do not reflect the risk and effort that goes into them. This in a game that for eight years has portrayed itself as one where risk is REQUIRED before reward. Yeah so this is more of the same null-sec codswallop that translates as "carebears get paid too much for risking so little." Greater risk in NO way shape or form ENTITLES you to greater reward, it just entitles you to greater risk. Why not pay everyone the same and you stop looking for null-sec welfare or stealing candy from carebears because you CHOSE to live in a ****, dangerous neighborhood? If you want the ease of high-sec, move to high-sec and quit whining about how much they get paid and how much they don't spend smoking ships like an addict smokes crack. Null-sec: "Boo hoo we want more money because we chose to live in a ****, dangerous neighborhood and the cost of living is SOOO high and that's SOOO unfair...but if you won't give it to us at least steal it from those carebears who chose to live someplace safer and save their money..." High-sec: "You could just move to high-sec." Null-sec: "No way you silly carebear, null-sec is where all the cool kids are..." High-sec: "Whatever, I'm going to go relax and have a beer." Null-sec: "Hey...can you give me tree fiddy?"
Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 6	Posted - 2011.11.10 09:56:00 - [13] - Quote Smiling Menace wrote: Why is everyone all of a sudden interested in how other people play EVE and demanding they have risk attached to everything? Seems to be a thing on these forums that hi sec activities make too much isk so nerf everything to hell. Nerfing everything in hi sec will only lead to bored players leaving EVE. I know!! there's not enough challenge in low/null so I suggest to increase the risk versus the insane amount of isk they can make from plexes/ratting/moon goo that all rats in low/null be given the same stats as CONCORD. There, now I support this proposal. Give all parts of eve massive risks versus rewards and everyone is happy, amiright? I am also going to have a wild stab in the dark that the OP isn't one of the incursion runners. What next? No farming level 4 missions? No plexes outside of null? No-one allowed to earn more than 10 isk per hour until they move to null? How about you play EVE your way and let others play it their way? I give up. Can only hope CCP ignores threads like these. EDIT Oh and before the OP screams incursionbear! I have never run an incursion and don't intend too, no matter how much isk it pays in any security level of space. hi there smiling menace im am not: 1- a mission runner 2- a null bare 3- WH *** 4-HS mining bare i am : 1-a lowsec PVP player 2- and incursion runner (in the vary sites that i want to "NERF") 3- an exploration Plex runner i have participated in many aspects of this great game and it is not just my "personal" opinion that HS incursions are scued in the risk to payout department. as you will see in my above reply. the payout would still be substantial is the proposed PAYOUT change was implemented. . i dont want to NERD EVERYTHING. i would just like to see the scaling of RVR that CCP intended not the current waterfall to plughole ratio that is reflected in HS VANGUARD sites
Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 6	Posted - 2011.11.10 09:59:00 - [14] - Quote Quote: Thredd Necro may i please refer you to my previous post. im not a NULL bare that is all
Goose99 Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 134	Posted - 2011.11.10 16:09:00 - [15] - Quote Thredd Necro wrote: FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: Smiling Menace wrote: Why is everyone all of a sudden interested in how other people play EVE and demanding they have risk attached to everything? Seems to be a thing on these forums that hi sec activities make too much isk so nerf everything to hell. Nerfing everything in hi sec will only lead to bored players leaving EVE. I know!! there's not enough challenge in low/null so I suggest to increase the risk versus the insane amount of isk they can make from plexes/ratting/moon goo that all rats in low/null be given the same stats as CONCORD. There, now I support this proposal. Give all parts of eve massive risks versus rewards and everyone is happy, amiright? I am also going to have a wild stab in the dark that the OP isn't one of the incursion runners. What next? No farming level 4 missions? No plexes outside of null? No-one allowed to earn more than 10 isk per hour until they move to null? How about you play EVE your way and let others play it their way? I give up. Can only hope CCP ignores threads like these. EDIT Oh and before the OP screams incursionbear! I have never run an incursion and don't intend too, no matter how much isk it pays in any security level of space. No one in this thread is telling incursioners to do anything else. No one is saying "play Eve my way" or anything like that. People are making over 100M isk per hour in highsec vanguards. That's the same level of income one can get in much more dangerous nullsec activities. THAT is why we have a problem with highsec incursions. They are imbalanced and pay out rewards that do not reflect the risk and effort that goes into them. This in a game that for eight years has portrayed itself as one where risk is REQUIRED before reward. Yeah so this is more of the same null-sec codswallop that translates as "carebears get paid too much for risking so little." Greater risk in NO way shape or form ENTITLES you to greater reward, it just entitles you to greater risk. Why not pay everyone the same and you stop looking for null-sec welfare or stealing candy from carebears because you CHOSE to live in a ****, dangerous neighborhood? If you want the ease of high-sec, move to high-sec and quit whining about how much they get paid and how much they don't spend smoking ships like an addict smokes crack. Null-sec: "Boo hoo we want more money because we chose to live in a ****, dangerous neighborhood and the cost of living is SOOO high and that's SOOO unfair...but if you won't give it to us at least steal it from those carebears who chose to live someplace safer and save their money..." High-sec: "You could just move to high-sec." Null-sec: "No way you silly carebear, null-sec is where all the cool kids are..." High-sec: "Whatever, I'm going to go relax and have a beer." Null-sec: "Hey...can you give me tree fiddy?" Actually, most of sov null consists of backwater systems tucked deep within the blue ass of large alliances, where you don't see hostiles for weeks on end. Why else do you think 90% of online toons at any given time there are bots? Highsec is where any grey apoc parked around the corner can potentially gank you with a rack of 1400s.
Thredd Necro Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 46	Posted - 2011.11.10 21:09:00 - [16] - Quote Dark Drifter wrote: Quote: Thredd Necro may i please refer you to my previous post. im not a NULL bare that is all I couldn't care less what you are. This is more of the same "punish the carebears and reward the non-carebears" as if by playing a game differently you are somehow special and deserve something extra. You aren't special because you like pvp or live in low/null-sec. Those are lifestyle choices and they are SUPPOSED to be less pleasant, less economically viable places to live. This is more "we want low/null-welfare and we want the carebears to pay for it" You just want tree fiddy... This is a game, remember? It's purpose is to entertain the people who play it. People sing the praises of the dark, dangerous, gritty, realistic sandbox that is EVE when they are busily screwing other people over and stealing their stuff, (yes it's part of the game and i have no trouble with it at all in principle), but when confronted by the dark, dangerous, gritty reality of economics, for example, a stronger capital base and greater buying power in high-sec, people go running to CCP waving their poop filled diapers crying about risk/reward ratios. Negotiate and enforce better treaties with your neighbors and reduce the amount of fighting and you will have more money. If all you are about is the fighting then we don't need EVE at all, we just a ladder/tier system so people can do nothing but fight 24/7/365. Maybe CCP could slow down resource renewal speed across the board, that might help reduce the "spaceships are EVE crack" mentality that a lot of people seem to have as they burn through ship after ship. I thought you guys were all for that dark, dangerous, gritty realism? Like fighting harder for fewer resources in relatively lawless areas, you know, where there will be more danger and less money and stuff to go around, a clockwork orange and mad max and all that? "We should get greater rewards for greater risks." Since when is THAT any sort of model of dark, dangerous, gritty reality? That is nothing but welfarebear, pure and simple... What's that you say? It's not as entertaining? You don't feel like you are getting the reward you feel you are entitled to for taking greater risks as though greater risk brings anything other then greater risk? It's a game and so it should be EASIER, (meaning more carebear), right? You do remember this is game and the relatively higher risks are something you volunteered for and can get away from at any time you want, right? You make it sound like low risk/high payout is a bad thing. Oh wait it IS a bad thing if one is not reaping the benefits from it. Quit patting yourselves on the back for voluntarily living a third world lifestyle when you don't have to, especially when you turn around and try to get welfare from or punish carebears for being smart and behaving like most humans would if EVE were a "real" world--making more money more safely. Pick up your low/null-welfarebear cards on the way out...
Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 6	Posted - 2011.11.10 21:36:00 - [17] - Quote ok... im not complaining that some guy in HS can make more ISK than i can in LS. im saying that current HS incursions are far to easy for the ISK they produce. the core proposal would fix that and still maintain incursion running as one of the more lucrative professions in HS while stemming the printing of ISK that is currently swamping the EVE economy. at the vary least you can agree with the basic principal of EVE that is RISK for REWARD. HS incursion fleets are 99% of the time formed from 2 channels or corporations/alliances. everyone knows everyone, people fleet with people they can trust and have flown with. the risk is negated by this vary fact. and you are rewarded for not realy putting your self in harms way. just to re iterate i dont want HS incursions UBER NERFED just brought down a peg so that its not the 1 definitive HS occupation.
Smiling Menace Star Nebulae Holdings Inc. 30	Posted - 2011.11.10 22:13:00 - [18] - Quote Dark Drifter wrote: ok... im not complaining that some guy in HS can make more ISK than i can in LS. im saying that current HS incursions are far to easy for the ISK they produce. the core proposal would fix that and still maintain incursion running as one of the more lucrative professions in HS while stemming the printing of ISK that is currently swamping the EVE economy. at the vary least you can agree with the basic principal of EVE that is RISK for REWARD. HS incursion fleets are 99% of the time formed from 2 channels or corporations/alliances. everyone knows everyone, people fleet with people they can trust and have flown with. the risk is negated by this vary fact. and you are rewarded for not realy putting your self in harms way. just to re iterate i dont want HS incursions UBER NERFED just brought down a peg so that its not the 1 definitive HS occupation. There you go again! Don't you read what others say here? You are dictating what people do in EVE. You just said it again! Quote: HS incursion fleets are 99% of the time formed from 2 channels or corporations/alliances. everyone knows everyone, people fleet with people they can trust and have flown with. the risk is negated by this vary fact. So because people are smart enough to band together with people they know and promote team work to make things easier for themselves, you want to punish them for this??? Are you nuts? Again, this is just a stealthwhine that carebears earn more in hi sec with good teamwork than you do in low sec. Your own posts confirm this. As previously posted before, if you don't like this, move back to hi sec, join one of these 2 channels and make some new friends whilst earning isk. It's that easy.
JitaJane Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 23	Posted - 2011.11.11 11:45:00 - [19] - Quote 1. I don't run incursions so I have little personal interest in making them profitable outside of some faction items I sell to those who do. 2. I am interested in Risk vs. Reward as a driving force in Eve in general. I do a bit of bounty/ LP whoring for casual play and income. Depending on the agent's yield this earns 40-60 Mil an hour. I use a somewhat (Bil or so give or take) expensive ship because I just want to run them fast and get on to other elements of the game that are less profitable and more interesting. So your math of a consistent 80M/Hr means that an incursion-er in a ship that costs twice as much as my mission boat is earning 140-200% of what I am. In addition to this he has to have a trusted team, online at the same time, and coordinated enough to make dozens of jumps (in which time they are not earning anything) to start earning their iskies for the day. Both of us are at fairly low risk. Their reward is higher for a lot more effort and organization than I can be bothered with. That does not seem unfair to me. Raising the payouts in Null Sec is probably a good idea. Given that holding Sov securely takes a hell of a lot more organization and involves a lot more risk. As far as I can see the highest reward for the lowest risk in HiSec is ganking and ninjaing. Both involve minimal risk when done competently and have large payouts for the time invested. If risk v reward is your concern take a peek at that dynamic.
Dark Drifter Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 7	Posted - 2011.11.11 14:28:00 - [20] - Quote ok gainking in HS is a compleatly different matter. the effort of moving to a different incursion system is totaly on the player. the fleet that he will most likely join is already running incursions and when he gets there he will join a fleet from one of the INCURSION channels and hay presto hes now making bank for minimal effort. in actuality when a dedicated incursion runner will remain in one constellation for the duration of the incursion (sticking to 1-3 systems for vanguards). when that incursion dies the CHANNEL moderators pick new incursion focus's for their respective tanking choices and travel to the designated constellation. they will rinse and repeat this. so travel times don't relay factor in to it all that much. as stated B4 a change to payout of the ISK would bring incursions in line with other HS pursuits while still retaining the edge in ISKPH NOTE: that i dont want to change PL payouts (if anything i would increase all LP rewards by 25%) after all CONCORD LP is the most versatile non transferable asset in game.

JitaJane Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 129	Posted - 2011.11.11 14:38:00 - [21] - Quote I just threw ganking in as the high end of low risk high reward HiSec activities. Though ninja has it beat. What I was really pointing out is the degree of effort and coordination to me implies that incursions should pay significantly better than missions. I don't have to wait for missions to spawn. I do not have to cultivate a motivated coordinated group of individuals to run missions. I can decide to get on and earn for an hour and stop without risking losing this support infrastructure to someone who plays more often. If I have a 60 hour week and do not play much my agent still has a slot open for me. What I am saying is a get an awful lot of latitude for earning a little bit less. Which seems fair to me. 90% of of the time my posts are about something I actually find interesting and want to learn more about. Do not be alarmed.
Aineko Macx Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 24	Posted - 2011.11.27 20:48:00 - [22] - Quote Nerf incursion rewards. Seriously. Halve them across the board, they'll still be very good.
JitaJane Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 129	Posted - 2011.11.27 20:57:00 - [23] - Quote 1/2 would mean incursions pay the same or a little less than missioning. With all of the hassle of finding and organizing a fleet. And the time of jumping out to the incursion. Might as well say remove incursions... 90% of of the time my posts are about something I actually find interesting and want to learn more about. Do not be alarmed.
Velicitia Open Designs 124	Posted - 2011.11.27 21:25:00 - [24] - Quote JitaJane wrote: 1/2 would mean incursions pay the same or a little less than missioning. With all of the hassle of finding and organizing a fleet. And the time of jumping out to the incursion. Might as well say remove incursions... nerf missions too?
JitaJane Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 129	Posted - 2011.11.27 21:33:00 - [25] - Quote Well if your message is 'nerf everything that does not fit my favorite play style' I assure you that is a common enough position. Lame, but common. 90% of of the time my posts are about something I actually find interesting and want to learn more about. Do not be alarmed.
Xorv Questionable Acquisitions 3	Posted - 2011.11.28 01:03:00 - [26] - Quote A single solution to High Sec Incursions, would be to have the security of the system degrade over time, until the Sansha Incursion is finished. If players don't clear it quickly, Concord gets overwhelmed and the system becomes Lowsec, left long enough the Sansha defeat Concord and take over, and thus the system becomes NPC Nullsec until cleared. I still think players killing Sanaha and being rewarded for it by Concord with Sansha ships is completely ass-backwards bang your head on the wall stupid. But with the above change players themselves will sort everything else that is wrong with Incursions in Highsec.
Wolodymyr Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos 5	Posted - 2011.11.28 01:42:00 - [27] - Quote Xorv wrote: A single solution to High Sec Incursions, would be to have the security of the system degrade over time, until the Sansha Incursion is finished. If players don't clear it quickly, Concord gets overwhelmed and the system becomes Lowsec, left long enough the Sansha defeat Concord and take over, and thus the system becomes NPC Nullsec until cleared.. When I originally read the preview of incursions before they came out I seriously thought they would degrade a system's sec status. This is a good idea and should really be in the game. I'd like to see incursions drop the sec status right off the bat but that might be asking a bit much. But the one serious fix to incursions would be to make the highsec ones fewer and far between as well as pay out a bit less. Lowsec should get a boost to the frequency of incursions as well as the payout to encourage people to go out there a bit more. Nullsec is dying because you can make more isk per hour safely running incursions in highsec than you can running sanctums in nullsec. Why would anyone take on the immense risk of nullsec when they can get more isk ratting safe and sound in empire space.
grazer gin Raving Rednecks 13	Posted - 2011.11.28 04:19:00 - [28] - Quote WAAAAA MUMMY PEOPLE IN HSEC ARE MAKING ISK AND I DONT LIKE IT WAAAAA WAAAAA WAAAAAAAAA A impersonation of the OP by me 28/11/11
Xorv Questionable Acquisitions 4	Posted - 2011.11.28 06:53:00 - [29] - Quote Wolodymyr wrote: When I originally read the preview of incursions before they came out I seriously thought they would degrade a system's sec status. This is a good idea and should really be in the game. I'd like to see incursions drop the sec status right off the bat but that might be asking a bit much. But the one serious fix to incursions would be to make the highsec ones fewer and far between as well as pay out a bit less. Lowsec should get a boost to the frequency of incursions as well as the payout to encourage people to go out there a bit more. Yeah absolutely, CCP should be embarrassed by Incursions as it is implemented now. It runs counter Sandbox style MMOs, risk/reward balance, roleplaying and lore. It's everything EVE ought not to be. When I first saw what they were doing I was very much taken aback, and felt very bad for those roleplaying Sansha loyalists, because no one got more shat on by this than them. While I would be in favor on an immediate security drop to low sec status or lower, I think a reasonable compromise would be to offer a small window in which those that mobilize quickly (and don't delay completion to farm) can feasibly do so before the security drops low enough to remove Concord protection. As you suggest in terms of effort on CCPs part, drastically reducing the frequency or removing Incursions entirely from Highsec would be easiest.
Shaidar Hussan Uncontrollable Violence Rage Alliance 18	Posted - 2011.11.30 11:47:00 - [30] - Quote Wolodymyr wrote: But the one serious fix to incursions would be to make the highsec ones fewer and far between as well as pay out a bit less. Lowsec should get a boost to the frequency of incursions as well as the payout to encourage people to go out there a bit more. This. Halving incursion payouts is too extreme, many people fly incursions in extremely expensive well coordinated groups. Their payouts need to be higher than that of mission runners, however I agree that payouts are currently too high across the board. So... increase competition. It should be possible to find a balance where the best incursion fleets earn extremely large amounts of ISK, as they do currently, whilst your average groups earn only mediocre amounts whilst aspiring to join the ranks of the better players. This would probably also encourage organisation of corporation run fleets over public channel fleets. Randomizing some events within the incursions themselves may also address the risk v. reward balance, and at the very least make incursions a little less mind-numbingly dull. Currently incursions require slightly more patience than missions, in the form of finding a fleet, but once inside are incredibly monotonous and simple. Random jamming ship spawns or unpredictable DPS spawns would mean that the FC at least has to think when calling targets. As for a system security drop... I'm guessing there would be feasibility issues with doing that outside of a downtime, I also strongly suspect that the moment the system security dropped the incursion would be abandoned. Effectively making this solution identical to a decrease in high sec incursion spawns. *The one foreseeable downside to this, and probably CCP's reason for leaving incursions as they are, is the public outcry any decrease in profit from incursions would cause. Once you have given a player base something, it is difficult to take it away. Even if it would in the long term be better for the game. Increasing competition in incursions rather than decreasing payout outright might negate this somewhat, but IMHO there is no real solution to the problem.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.