What's in it for the rest of the players in high-sec?

What's in it for the rest of the players in high-sec?

That you get to come run incursions! It's the biggest cooperative PvE activity in highsec, probably the most fun, and the isk/hour should be equal to, or even greater than, the solo PvE activities.

For months (and longer) highsec incursions have been plagued by people completing the Kundalini site early. This forces everyone to move and allows one group of players to deny everyone else the ability to run sites together. The natural solution is to extend the time period during which the mothership cannot be destroyed (because it has not yet spawned).

I suggest that in HIGHSEC, and only in HIGHSEC -

The Kundalini site should not spawn until the incursion goes into withdraw (or at the very least until it is deeply into mobolized). This will allow pilots to stay longer at a single incursion site, and will not give any one group the ability to close down incursions early (as nearly all groups have done at one time or another).

Seriously though, if this were to happen then incursion income would need to be nerfed again to balance it all out.

For months (and longer) highsec incursions have been plagued by people completing the Kundalini site early.

So you want to force people like me who like to play solo to play in larger groups because of isk..? Wow... Just wow.

This forces everyone to move and allows one group of players to deny everyone else the ability to run sites together

Use some of your Incursion Income and hire some mercs to kill off the people killing the Mom.

The mercs get opponents in a known place at a known time along with shiny loot drops and kill mails.
The mom gets to hang out a while longer.

From what I remember of incursioning, you don't even need to really kill the DPS ships. Pop a few of their logis and the Sanshas will do the rest.

Wait - is that the clarion trumpet call of emergent gameplay I hear?

I really hope no one reads this.

Remove incursions from Highsec. You can run them in Lowsec and shoot each other with your spaceships instead of whining in the forums about it if there is a conflict between your two wow-rai.. I mean incursion groups. Problem solved... next thread please...

Incursions in lowsec have been a great success....not. No one runs them because its too dangerous to put a fleet of Battleships there (shoutout to PL). The only reasonable place to host cooperative PvE activities (especially ones that are open to new players) is in highsec.

[quote=Veers Belvar]

Incursions should be banned from Highsec, which would solve the very problem you where raising in the first place without some silly change. This would also balance the risk/reward problem incursions have.

OP says: "The devs need to change the game mechanics because a group of players is popping the mothership and affecting how I want to play the game."

Compare to the usual "nerf ganking" post:

"The devs need to change the game mechanics because a group of players is popping my ship in highsec and affecting how I want to play the game."

See the difference? Neither do I.

The only reasonable place to host cooperative PvE activities (especially ones that are open to new players) is in highsec.

And trust me, as one who has bothered trying - no matter how many well written and thoughtful responses you give, you will get no actual conversation beyond him repeating his point over and over, as if by number of times it is said somehow validity is added.

Don't like people getting in the way of your incursion thingie? Strap on some guns, hire some mercs, do something to stop them. Sounds like player conflict, which is best left to players - not throwing tears at CCP in hopes they will make changes.

Again, before the agreement Incursions were not open to new players; they were treated as endgame content and the closest a new player could get to them was a Logi [4] Basilisk in Vanguards.


However... I seem to remember that the agreement was referenced in CCP's decision to nerf Vanguard income - so perhaps, now that Incursions are getting back to where they were before the agreement, they might consider increasing the site payouts again.

No one runs them in lowsec because it would be crazy to have a 40 man battleship fleet in lowsec. You would be begging to get hotdropped and massacred. Incursions are occasionally run in sovereign null, but in a very careful fashion, with the entire fleet usually docking up if a hostile appears in local. To address that CCP has buffed the nullsec incursion awards, and we will see if that gets more participation. Obviously you need to be part of a major alliance to participate.

Highsec incursion runners would not go to lowsec if somehow highsec incursions ended. It would just mean the end of pretty much the only communal PvE activity in highsec. The risk/reward is not much different than competent people blitzing SOE L4's. CCP is already on record as being happy with incursions (rightfully in my mind), and if anything is looking for ways to get more people to run them as opposed to just soloing L4s, mining, etc... and is certainly not looking to remove them from highsec!

You just want easy ISK without risk and doing the work for it. There are many ways to protect a fleet. Moving incursions away from Highsec would encourage even more teamplay in the PvE community to protect their assets from hotdrops. The current risk/reward situation with incursions is completely out of control. Maybe CCP said they are happy without it, but they are wrong all the time, so I simply try to make them aware of the real problem.

I mean this thread alone is a monument to the mindset of the incursion PvE community. Maximize ISK farming, even moving your ships in Highsec is a inconvenience you try to avoid by extending the time you can farm sites without risk and effort. I think it is obvious to everyone outside of your bubble that this is one gigantic unbalanced risk free ISK faucet which is probably one of the main causes for the massive inflation we all observe in the game.

Something has to be done, and moving incursions to Lowsec is the right thing to do. It will not be possible to balance them in Highsec where there is virtually no risk for the incursion runner. This is not WOW where site farming is a non issue because players are isolated by various mechanics. This is EVE and such unbalanced stuff has a big influence on the whole market and disrupts other parts of the game which worked well for years.

No one runs them in lowsec because it would be crazy to have a 40 man battleship fleet in lowsec. You would be begging to get hotdropped and massacred.

Except ... wait a second ...

DJ if you feel the need to come in and troll and make personal attacks, could you do it somewhere else please? I'm really not interested in a discussion with you, nor do I feel the need to go into personal attacks, and I would prefer if my thread not get derailed. Why not make a post with your idea for ending highsec incursions? Thanks.

They hotdrop you on the way to the incursion system - or they hotdrop a fleet next door and come in and massacre you, etc.... Again if you don't believe me about the current state of incursions in lowsec - do some research. Show me who is running them, and how fast influence is going down. From what I can tell the lowsec incursions tend to attract a very sparse crowd (as opposed to nullsec, which, when in the correct location, can draw fleets). But I digress - I would rather discuss how to improve highsec incursions.

No one runs them in lowsec

I'd prefer to get back to my specific suggestion instead of incursions in general, so will just respond briefly, and then hopefully can get back to topic.


Highsec is about "easy" ISK. Mission running, mining, incursions - these are all not very risky activities. Highsec is a place where if you put in work you can earn a reasonable amount of ISK without facing a tremendous amount of risk. If anything, incursions are much riskier than mining or mission running. There is no way to protect a 40 man battleship fleet in lowsec from hotdrops. There is a reason no one uses a doctrine like that. If you really want to make lowsec incursions viable, ask CCP to massively buff battleships, and nerf the heck out of capitals, bombers, drones, frigates, etc... I don't think there is going to be much reception to that. The idea that there should be communal PvE activities available where you can earn ISK while working with other people is nothing to apologize for.

Giving one group of people the ability to close down incursion sites after a few hours and deny everyone else the chance to make ISK is not a normal mechanic for Eve, and that's what I'm highlighting. Incidentally, the deflation for eve commodities suggest that the problem is not too many ISK faucets (if so ships, mods, etc...would skyrocket in ISK price), rather the problem is too much mining which is making commodities too plentiful and outstripping the growth rate of ISK, driving down their price. So if that is your concern you should support more incursion running to combat the dangerous deflation we are seeing (which is also driving up Plex prices).

Ok, hopefully we can get comments from people (not CODE!) who want to see incursions becoming a better game mechanic instead of just ban them all, ban them from highsec, etc...

The logic of 'close hisec incursions and folks can run them in low/null' falls apart when you look to see what happens when hisec incusions are closed due to swift ending of mom sites.

Do the incursioneers all flock to low?

nope

btw Imma, your sig makes me giggle because Code Always Wins is . . . .well AT XII

I agree that the kundallini spawn mechanic can stand a looking at and I have spoken to CCP about it already and have more to say next week at the summit.

For those of you thinking that this is a kneejerk reaction to the slap fight happening right now between ISN and TVP, wrong. This idea and request came to me long before the latest p*ssing match started.

I endorse incursions as working for isk . . . earning it. There was risk but the communities worked hard to minimize it over time and now they reap the benefits by working. I don't know of any afk mechanic in incursions. Can null say the same about their income streams? Do they include and involve active play?

m

The logic of 'close hisec incursions and folks can run them in low/null' falls apart when you look to see what happens when hisec incusions are closed due to swift ending of mom sites.

Do the incursioneers all flock to low?

nope

btw Imma, your sig makes me giggle because Code Always Wins is . . . .well AT XII

I agree that the kundallini spawn mechanic can stand a looking at and I have spoken to CCP about it already and have more to say next week at the summit.

For those of you thinking that this is a kneejerk reaction to the slap fight happening right now between ISN and TVP, wrong. This idea and request came to me long before the latest p*ssing match started.

I endorse incursions as working for isk . . . earning it. There was risk but the communities worked hard to minimize it over time and now they reap the benefits by working. I don't know of any afk mechanic in incursions. Can null say the same about their income streams? Do they include and involve active play?

m

. Why should anyone take someone seriously who argues in such a way?

High-sec incursions are extreme income with almost no risk ... if something should be done with them than nerfing their income or making them more risky is only way to go ... right now those glass cannons making billions of isk every hour (i mean whole fleet for slower readers) with less contribution to eve community then any other group of players are ridiculously OP ... Eve needs more isk sinks, not more income into player wallets, specially this free income ...

Why is this a problem? Sounds like player freedom being exercised to me.

minimal consequences.

I agree that the kundallini spawn mechanic can stand a looking at and I have spoken to CCP about it already and have more to say next week at the summit.

I'm not sure this is right. The risk of losing a ship in an incursion is much higher than if mining or mission running. And looking at the income of the entire fleet does not make sense, it's the income of the individual pilots, which taking into account travel, waiting to get into fleet, etc...is nothing special compared to blitzing SOE L4s, mining, or station trading.

And given the general deflation in Eve, the problem is not too many isk faucets. If anything its that New Eden is flooded with too many cheap raw materials.

For months (and longer) highsec incursions have been plagued by people completing the Kundalini site early. This forces everyone to move and allows one group of players to deny everyone else the ability to run sites together. The natural solution is to extend the time period during which the mothership cannot be destroyed (because it has not yet spawned).

I suggest that in HIGHSEC, and only in HIGHSEC -

The Kundalini site should not spawn until the incursion goes into withdraw (or at the very least until it is deeply into mobolized). This will allow pilots to stay longer at a single incursion site, and will not give any one group the ability to close down incursions early (as nearly all groups have done at one time or another).

All the hard work that Incursion FCs do does not justify changing mechanics to prevent someone from knocking over your ISK-farming sandcastles.

There's no good reason why Incursioners should be protected from emergent behavior, even if that emergent behavior is just someone being a jerk because they can.

Except ... wait a second ...

I'm sorry, I can't hear you over my covert cyno activating.

Seriously though, if this were to happen then incursion income would need to be nerfed again to balance it all out.

Just go and shoot the people shooting the mom.

And all those bombers and blackops going POP.
Rats will aggo them , you have omni resist fleet on grid , including logistics.

Sorry , explain me what is wrong with putting more RISK to compensate REWARD you get from running incursion sites?

If CODE. can field enough low-ISK DPS to kill a freighter before CONCORD shows up, surely some incursionbears can field enough DPS to kill part of a logistics chain in that same amount of time, right?

After all, even shiny logi ships don't have the EHP of a freighter - especially if the scrams and weapons are prefired and the gank ships seboed.

Just a brief response to some of the points here

1. I stated pretty clearly already that the hotdrop would be on the way to the system or next door to it. The fact remains that no one is doing the 3 nullsec incursions right now, and the lowsec one is seeing very light activity. Objective reality always trumps theories.

No one runs them in lowsec because it would be crazy to have a 40 man battleship fleet in lowsec. You would be begging to get hotdropped and massacred.

2. Bribing/shooting people doing the MOM early - in addition to being very hard to pull off (incursion fleets shoot back, freighters don't), it's also wildly ineffective. Most people running incursions for a while can easily replace a lost ship.

Couple issues with that

1. Light a scram, pull all the aggro off everything else on field, except something with jams.
2. Then we add in speed and sig tanking, and the fact that only a truely stupid fleet stays on the beacons if there is a credible gank threat.
3. Now, consider that many communities run 100-150% more logistics ships on grid than are necessary if one only has the aggro from sansha to worry about and you see it isn't as simple as ganking a logi or two.
4. Destroying fleet discipline might work, and would be fairly simple if you knew when to time it and had an inside person.

Well then it seems clear that ganking in highsec incursions needs to be buffed in that case!


New proposal: systems with active incursions have CONCORD response delayed by 300%, and security loss for criminal actions is halved. Sanshas are attacking & suppressing concord too, obviously the police response will be ineffective in a warzone.

A lot of us enjoy the PvE content of incursions, and are not looking for PvP gank warfare. There is already ample opportunity for PvP in the game (low/null/wars). The question here is how to make the PvE content of incursions more available to the playerbase, and to prevent a few people from ruining it for everyone.

No, what you want is to stop other people from doing "your" activity without doing anything yourself.

If you cannot be bothered to go kill them then you have no right to complain.

No, what I'm trying to do is change a mechanic where a small group of players have the power to arbitrarily deny the ability to run incursions to everyone else in highsec.

They are doing exactly what is meant to happen, killing the mom. These things were not put into the game for you to farm away to your hearts content, if you don't want people killing the mom then go out there and kill them.

I don't think CCP wants there to be a situation where there are no highsec incursions available to run (note how they recently changed the respawn timer). Your solution, as already pointed out, would not ameliorate the problem.

Why is this a problem? Sounds like player freedom being exercised to me.

For months (and longer) highsec incursions have been plagued by people completing the Kundalini site early. This forces everyone to move and allows one group of players to deny everyone else the ability to run sites together. The natural solution is to extend the time period during which the mothership cannot be destroyed (because it has not yet spawned).

I suggest that in HIGHSEC, and only in HIGHSEC -

The Kundalini site should not spawn until the incursion goes into withdraw (or at the very least until it is deeply into mobolized). This will allow pilots to stay longer at a single incursion site, and will not give any one group the ability to close down incursions early (as nearly all groups have done at one time or another).

Sure it would. You kill them and they cant do it.

Can you inflict enough gank losses on a 40 man (or for a mom site 80 man) battleship fleet with 10+ logi on grid to actually deter doing mom sites? Absolutely not.

I don't think CCP wants there to be a situation where there are no highsec incursions available to run (note how they recently changed the respawn timer). Your solution, as already pointed out, would not ameliorate the problem.

[
Well then it seems clear that ganking in highsec incursions needs to be buffed in that case!

New proposal: systems with active incursions have CONCORD response delayed by 300%, and security loss for criminal actions is halved. Sanshas are attacking & suppressing concord too, obviously the police response will be ineffective in a warzone.

Have you tried? Didn't think so.

Gank every MOM fleet's logi as they undock, see if they still try to run the site.

Sure it would. You kill them and they cant do it.

It is much more the fact that the fleet doctrines are designed to resist gank attempts (and thus don't shoot back, as this would deny the target reps without the logi going suspect) and the people doing it are pretty good. There are 3 or 4 attack types, which, timed correctly, can really mess up a fleet, but require fairly good timing, a knowledge of the sites and reasonable coordination of a larger than average group of gankers (25-40 catalysts, 15-20 talos or nado)



It has been tried before. there are other ways to get the logi to the site, like staging out of orcas at safe spots. Not to mention many incursion communities have enough logi ships on hand to replace reasonable losses for an entire incursion, so a well run incursion means a full stock to replace those lost to ganking. Some community SRP funds approach those of middle weight null alliances, and are willing to cover any ships lost to ganking. Once again, things which have been done and which can be done again if needed. A brute force or scattershot approach will work poorly. Again, the weak point of the majority of fleets is the players and their discipline, rather than their ships, as those can be enforced as being fit to a standard.


Unless they have an entire fleets worth of players waiting in the wings. Decs won't work, so the killing them will have to be suicide gank, so it would take a massive number of toons to inflict significant damage to an incursion fleet, with a largish number of players pulling triggers in tight coordination.

It is much more the fact that the fleet doctrines are designed to resist gank attempts (and thus don't shoot back, as this would deny the target reps without the logi going suspect) and the people doing it are pretty good. There are 3 or 4 attack types, which, timed correctly, can really mess up a fleet, but require fairly good timing, a knowledge of the sites and reasonable coordination of a larger than average group of gankers (25-40 catalysts, 15-20 talos or nado)



It has been tried before. there are other ways to get the logi to the site, like staging out of orcas at safe spots. Not to mention many incursion communities have enough logi ships on hand to replace reasonable losses for an entire incursion, so a well run incursion means a full stock to replace those lost to ganking. Some community SRP funds approach those of middle weight null alliances, and are willing to cover any ships lost to ganking. Once again, things which have been done and which can be done again if needed. A brute force or scattershot approach will work poorly. Again, the weak point of the majority of fleets is the players and their discipline, rather than their ships, as those can be enforced as being fit to a standard.


Unless they have an entire fleets worth of players waiting in the wings. Decs won't work, so the killing them will have to be suicide gank, so it would take a massive number of toons to inflict significant damage to an incursion fleet, with a largish number of players pulling triggers in tight coordination.

Unless they have an entire fleets worth of players waiting in the wings. Decs won't work, so the killing them will have to be suicide gank, so it would take a massive number of toons to inflict significant damage to an incursion fleet, with a largish number of players pulling triggers in tight coordination.

OK in that case you should throw your support behind this proposal:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372423
so that you can wardec the opposing incursion runners without them being able to dodge.

It is much more the fact that the fleet doctrines are designed to resist gank attempts (and thus don't shoot back, as this would deny the target reps without the logi going suspect) and the people doing it are pretty good. There are 3 or 4 attack types, which, timed correctly, can really mess up a fleet, but require fairly good timing, a knowledge of the sites and reasonable coordination of a larger than average group of gankers (25-40 catalysts, 15-20 talos or nado)

It has been tried before. there are other ways to get the logi to the site, like staging out of orcas at safe spots. Not to mention many incursion communities have enough logi ships on hand to replace reasonable losses for an entire incursion, so a well run incursion means a full stock to replace those lost to ganking. Some community SRP funds approach those of middle weight null alliances, and are willing to cover any ships lost to ganking. Once again, things which have been done and which can be done again if needed. A brute force or scattershot approach will work poorly. Again, the weak point of the majority of fleets is the players and their discipline, rather than their ships, as those can be enforced as being fit to a standard.

Agree with all these points. Also the solution to any problem in highsec is not "suicide gank them." The game should be flexible enough to accommodate those looking to do PvP as well as those looking to do PvE.

Its in lowsec, decs are not needed.

Stop trying to make excuses for your lack of spine.

OK in that case you should throw your support behind this proposal:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372423
so that you can wardec the opposing incursion runners without them being able to dodge.

Or I could support the solution in my OP, which makes the mothership spawn later, and allows for more groups to run more sites for longer. Between a simple fix to solve the problem, and a complicated fix designed to see more carnage and PvP in highsec, I think I'll go with Door #1.

Hey, don't incursion runners have good timing, a knowledge of sites, and reasonable coordination? Sounds like you have the perfect population to make this work.

So gank them on the MOM gate. Is the community going to keep forming up if they're constantly losing Logi and draining their SRP funds while being unable to do the site they're trying to do?

SRP funds are finite, and it takes less ISK to gank a logi than to replace one.

Whats in lowsec? I see highsec in the origional post, and assumed that the discussion was still about highsec. If it is all about lowsec, then goku-fleet actually has a purpose once you remove the scramblers, as they can be dropped directly on the target via a covert cyno.

They are bitching about people killing the mothership in lowsec and how they cannot farm the incursions.

They are bitching about people killing the mothership in lowsec and how they cannot farm the incursions.

Except no one but the boxers is willing to open that particular section of Pandora's Box, and they keep hesitating. If anyone has the resources to do much of the shooting, I'm willing to help with the intel so long as while I am in any way affiliated with such a venture, my community of choice is not on the target list.

Again, trying to help people refine the tactics. Kinda bored with tornados warping into sites just as we clear them, or 6 catalysts trying to kill a logi that already has its velocity up.

They are bitching about people killing the mothership in lowsec and how they cannot farm the incursions.

No...we were talking about highsec.

In other words, you're deciding not to use the tools at your disposal to deal with other player actions. Why should CCP bail you out from the consequences of that decision?



Don't wait for other people to fix your problems for you.

So wardec them if you dont want to gank them.

No...we were talking about highsec. In lowsec the issue is that no one even wants to run incursions because fielding a 40 man battleship fleet is like sending PL a personal invitation to come and roflstomp you. Fixing lowsec incursions is a whole other cup of tea, and please don't derail this thread into that.

They are mostly in 1 man shell corps that just disband and reform if you wardecc them. And before you then tell me to go to the wardecc thread and advocate against corp rolling, realize that they would just go to NPC corps and eat the 11% tax.

So wardec them if you dont want to gank them.

1. PL doesn't *do* pedestrian gate jumps. So you're safe there. (Also, there's such a thing as having a scout in your neighboring systems)
2. Who said anything about bringing a battleship fleet? AHACs give you the same tank, better resists, and a better ability to exeunt. Hell, you could probably run them with shield HACs too (BEagles, anyone?).

Then they jump corp, and you are out 50m isk. Old "solution" with countermeasures already in place in most communities.
The average fleet has not more than 3 people in any given player corp.

Maybe the reason they made that change was to make popping the mothership early more worthwhile? With the long respawn, farming for the max time possible was pretty much enforced because of the respawn delay. Nobody wanted to pop them because it always reduced their own income.

Now sniping the mothership gives your group the biggest payout and you can get another the next day. Plus it denies further LP to your competitors, raising the value of your own take!

CBCs work slightly better for VGs than HACs and T3s will do anything in incursions in a reasonable manner, and can become ridiculously tanked or otherwise PVP comped within moments thanks to mobile depots and/or NPC stations.

Well, then. Seems that war decs done work at all do they?

Yea we know. We are just loving the irony of Veers defending the war dec mechanics in one thread and then lamenting how the war dec mechanics are too easy to evade in another.

Hence my reference to CODE. fielding DPS against freighters. Taking action against the highsec incursion dogs will require coordinated, high-DPS suicide ganking that targets at least two points in the logi chain as quickly as possible and with as little aggro switch from Sansha as possible.

Personally I wouldn't mind the "concord response is delayed" idea. After all, CONCORD is very busy in Incursion systems, defending planets and making sure that civilians aren't being abducted. How do they have time to deal with capsuleer infringements as well?

6) Delete highsec incursions altogether cause oh my god the risk / reward for incursion farmers is the worst.

Look, ganking incursion fleets is a different discussion. Personally, I don't think its effective or viable, and it certainly wont solve the problem in my OP. If anyone else has alternative solutions to my proposal, which will allow players to always have a highsec incursion available to run sites in, I'm all ears.

Look, ganking incursion fleets is a different discussion. Personally, I don't think its effective or viable, and it certainly wont solve the problem in my OP. If anyone else has alternative solutions to my proposal, which will allow players to always have a highsec incursion available to run sites in, I'm all ears.

Well, TVP took this action on it's own, since there isn't much we can do, at least I can say that in future, any pilot who has ever flown in TVP fleets after today will not be accepted into my fleets. They don't run all the time, and some of their pilots still run in other channels when wait list is to long or there is no fleet. From now on, I will not take any known TVP pilots unless TVP stops acting as space police. Rest of us have no beef with ISN, and this should have been resolved other way, not by affecting all channels.

I wouldn't complain otherwise, but this downtime is starting to affect me, we are running out of targets in 0.0 since we are increasing our yields and now we don't have incursions and we don't have stuff to kill since even provi is starting to learn our cyno alts and I hate to train new ones...

Well, TVP took this action on it's own, since there isn't much we can do, at least I can say that in future, any pilot who has ever flown in TVP fleets after today will not be accepted into my fleets. They don't run all the time, and some of their pilots still run in other channels when wait list is to long or there is no fleet. From now on, I will not take any known TVP pilots unless TVP stops acting as space police. Rest of us have no beef with ISN, and this should have been resolved other way, not by affecting all channels.

I wouldn't complain otherwise, but this downtime is starting to affect me, we are running out of targets in 0.0 since we are increasing our yields and now we don't have incursions and we don't have stuff to kill since even provi is starting to learn our cyno alts and I hate to train new ones...

I would prefer to not lay the blame at the feet of TVP. Virtually every community has engaged in this type of activity before, and the list of grievances is very long, making a diplomatic solution well-nigh impossible. I think the troubling part is how any small group of players can effectively deny incursions to everyone in highsec. That is what I would like to see changed.

I would prefer to not lay the blame at the feet of TVP. Virtually every community has engaged in this type of activity before, and the list of grievances is very long, making a diplomatic solution well-nigh impossible. I think the troubling part is how any small group of players can effectively deny incursions to everyone in highsec. That is what I would like to see changed.

Well, TVP took this action on it's own, since there isn't much we can do, at least I can say that in future, any pilot who has ever flown in TVP fleets after today will not be accepted into my fleets. They don't run all the time, and some of their pilots still run in other channels when wait list is to long or there is no fleet. From now on, I will not take any known TVP pilots unless TVP stops acting as space police. Rest of us have no beef with ISN, and this should have been resolved other way, not by affecting all channels.

I wouldn't complain otherwise, but this downtime is starting to affect me, we are running out of targets in 0.0 since we are increasing our yields and now we don't have incursions and we don't have stuff to kill since even provi is starting to learn our cyno alts and I hate to train new ones...

Well, they are to blame for current one, as far as history goes, you are correct, though few of them that could do mom never did stuff like this, so not entirely correct

While I appreciate the sentiment, this will have a reinforcing effect on the TVP community. Without other options, especially with the "23/7" convenience of TVP, they now are more wedded to the TVP. What would help most in this particular case is to give TVP membership the full truth of things like the coms discussions where they kicked the leadership of any community that disagreed with their stance, until people were unwilling to speak up, or realized the futility of arguing with the current leadership, and offer them places in fleets without stigma, provided they don't just go back into TVP with the isk and experience gained in the other fleets. This sort of initial banning for flying elsewhere is part of why armor is only just starting to bloom into multiple viable communities again (after the collapse of Born Ara between 9 months and a year ago) and what originally gave ISN the impetus to become a fairly insular and tight community. It will either break TVP, which is unlikely due to sheer institutional momentum if nothing else (and they have some damned good FCs, even if their leadership is mostly trying to squabble and feud) or strengthen it as it becomes TVP or nothing for various pilots.

Ok, can we please not derail into incursion politics? I'm sure someone could start a thread on that in GD if there is interest.

Your OP was about incursion politics. How is it a derailment?

My OP was about suggestion to keep the mothership site from being taken down so quickly, and denying highsec players the ability to run incursions. The politics of incursion communities, about which books could be written, is thankfully not a topic that needs to be addressed to solve the problem I raised.

My OP was about suggestion to keep the mothership site from being taken down so quickly, and denying highsec players the ability to run incursions. The politics of incursion communities, about which books could be written, is thankfully not a topic that needs to be addressed to solve the problem I raised.

Look, ganking incursion fleets is a different discussion. Personally, I don't think its effective or viable, and it certainly wont solve the problem in my OP. If anyone else has alternative solutions to my proposal, which will allow players to always have a highsec incursion available to run sites in, I'm all ears.

"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon

Is it "with which" or "upon which"? I keep quoting it as "upon which". Am I doing it wrong?

"upon which" would be correct, I'm not sure what he actually said. And I'm pretty sure he was not referring to a few people able to ruin incursions day after day for the entire highsec incursion community. Suicide ganking is one thing, literally removing the gameplay of incursions from highsec quite another.

"upon which" would be correct, I'm not sure what he actually said. And I'm pretty sure he was not referring to a few people able to ruin incursions day after day for the entire highsec incursion community. Suicide ganking is one thing, literally removing the gameplay of incursions from highsec quite another.

So it's ok that incursion runners (aka a few people), by prolonging incursions in their machs, vindis, nightmares and tech2 logi ships (ie ships new players generally can't fly or afford), to ruin the experence for the local miners, mission runners and explorers (who either have to move or simply not log in at all) and that's ok, but it's not ok for a "few people" to do it to you.

Got it. Just wanted to make sure.

So it's ok that incursion runners (aka a few people), by prolonging incursions in their machs, vindis, nightmares and tech2 logi ships (ie ships new players generally can't fly or afford), to ruin the experence for the local miners, mission runners and explorers (who either have to move or simply not log in at all) and that's ok, but it's not ok for a "few people" to do it to you.

Got it. Just wanted to make sure.

If you have not already done so, you will find that the standard reply from incursioners is "go do that stuff somewhere else" or the ever-amusing "then make a fleet and kill the incursion". Except that wait a minute, OP wants to prevent people from being able to kill the incursion. Hmm.

Anyone is welcome to do the mom site. If you can get a coallition of such locals together, they can end such a site with moderate investement. t1 logi cruisers, while not optimal, can be made sufficiently well tanked to survive. So can combat battlecruisers, and HACs, and t3s and so on. Just need someone with the drive to do it.

Is it "with which" or "upon which"? I keep quoting it as "upon which". Am I doing it wrong?

"upon which" would be correct, I'm not sure what he actually said. And I'm pretty sure he was not referring to a few people able to ruin incursions day after day for the entire highsec incursion community. Suicide ganking is one thing, literally removing the gameplay of incursions from highsec quite another.

Asking for mechanics to be changed to counteract a group of players dominating an entire playstyle is still hand-holding. That is not what EVE is about.

The correct solution is to fight against the groups that are causing you grief. For instance, wardeccing them and camping them at gates so they cannot get to the mom. Oh wait, they'll just drop corp and reform. Something you seem to support, or at least suggest.

How about this: Support us when we say NPC corps are toxic for gameplay. Nerf incursion income on NPC corps and remove the dec dodging exploit. Now incursion runners have a choice: Stay in an NPC corp and make us much as you'd make blitzing L4s, or join a corp and deal with the aggression when someone gets pissed that you keep popping the mom.

That's not to say I am necessarily against more location spawns, if there is a viable reason why it should be (ex. # of players engaging in incursions has increased significantly). But it is being suggested as a remedy to a player-driven conflict. Once again: that is now what EVE is about.

Asking for mechanics to be changed to counteract a group of players dominating an entire playstyle is still hand-holding. That is not what EVE is about.

The correct solution is to fight against the groups that are causing you grief. For instance, wardeccing them and camping them at gates so they cannot get to the mom. Oh wait, they'll just drop corp and reform. Something you seem to support, or at least suggest.

How about this: Support us when we say NPC corps are toxic for gameplay. Nerf incursion income on NPC corps and remove the dec dodging exploit. Now incursion runners have a choice: Stay in an NPC corp and make us much as you'd make blitzing L4s, or join a corp and deal with the aggression when someone gets pissed that you keep popping the mom.

That's not to say I am necessarily against more location spawns, if there is a viable reason why it should be (ex. # of players engaging in incursions has increased significantly). But it is being suggested as a remedy to a player-driven conflict. Once again: that is now what EVE is about.

This is again trying to force PvP on PvE players. I personally don't play Eve for PvP, I play it for PvE.

I accept that suicide ganking is an important part of the game, and preventing it from happening to me is an important part of my playstyle. Other than that, and much like miners and mission runners, I'm looking to PvE.

It would be like some group finding a way to make all mining or mission running impossible, and then telling the miners and mission runners to go wardec them. That's not what they want to do - they want to mine and run missions, not fight PvP wars.

Thankfully the mechanics of highsec are designed so that you can avoid that type of PvP by being in a 1-man or NPC Corp, and then happily live your PvE life.

What I will do is to advocate a solution, when, as now, a group of players has found a way to prevent everyone in highsec from engaging in incursion PvE, day after day, without real consequences. Much like no one can "turn off" L4 mission or mining, no one should be able to arbitrarily "turn off" all highsec incursions at will, just to spite everyone else. Because that is not what Eve is about.

I should point out that in 5 months of running incursions I have not once seen the locals band together and take down the mom site. In fact, many of them expressed curiosity at the incursion spawning, asked about it in local, and joined up with the established incursion communities, getting a lot of enjoyment out of the experience. If they wanted to carry on their activities they can literally move over 2 systems for a few days. With the motherships down, highsec incursion runners cannot run incursions at all, there is no incursion 2 systems away!

Also, most communities accept T1 battleships. I often see new incursion runners in stripped down maelstroms and hyperions (total cost for hull + fit 300 mil or so). It's hardly some elitist activity like flying capital ships or something.

This is again trying to force PvP on PvE players. I personally don't play Eve for PvP, I play it for PvE. I accept that suicide ganking is an important part of the game, and preventing it from happening to me is an important part of my playstyle. Other than that, and much like miners and mission runners, I'm looking to PvE. It would be like some group finding a way to make all mining or mission running impossible, and then telling the miners and mission runners to go wardecc them. That's not what they want to do - they want to mine and run missions, not fight PvP wars. Thankfully the mechanics of highsec are designed so that you can avoid that type of PvP by being in a 1-man or NPC Corp, and then happily live your PvE life. Since I fully support those mechanics, obviously I won't be supporting the nerf of such organizations.

What I will do is to advocate a solution, when, as now, a group of players has found a way to prevent everyone in highsec from engaging in incursion PvE, day after day, without real consequences. Much like no one can "turn off" L4 mission or mining, no one should be able to arbitrarily "turn off" all highsec incursions at will, just to spite everyone else. Because that is not what Eve is about.

Ok, thread is getting derailed from OP. CCP is on record as supporting incursions, recently cut the spawn times between sites, and has said it is happy with incursion payouts. My suggestion relates to how to bring that valuable content to more players in highsec. If you oppose incursions, want them removed from the game, etc, etc... feel free to make a post in the F&I section detailing your ideas.

Ok, thread is getting derailed from OP. CCP is on record as supporting incursions, recently cut the spawn times between sites, and has said it is happy with incursion payouts. My suggestion relates to how to bring that valuable content to more players in highsec. If you oppose incursions, want them removed from the game, etc, etc... feel free to make a post in the F&I section detailing your ideas.

Veers Belvar sometimes I laugh so hard at your statements that I fall out of my chair.
You want CCP to step in and stop one group of players because they are ruining your gaming experience, yet the very presence of the incursion and you incursion ISK farmers is ruining the game play of an entirely different group of people. My dictionary defines this behavior as this hypocrisy. I will agree that as incursion farmers you do not have as many options as the locals do but that does not change the fact that many of your posts very hypocritical.


"Incursions are new player friendly. The base fittings are easily achievable by someone with 2-3 months in the game. "
And this one
"I often see new incursion runners in stripped down maelstroms and hyperions (total cost for hull + fit 300 mil or so). It's hardly some elitist activity like flying capital ships or something."
For many players in the 2-3 months age range 300 million ISK is an extremely large sum of ISK to gather, and those who do usually have much of it given to them, or they buy plexes for cash and then sell them for ISK. If you spent more time with these new players and less time in your ivory tower ISK farming Incursion fleets you might have understood this basic fact about the game.
Thinking back on all the hours I wasted waiting to be invited to a fleet I have to laugh at your assessment that incursions are new player friendly. There were very few FC"s willing to risk a new player into their fleets even when they are all skills 5 for BS or logi, I expect that there are even fewer still that would risk a low skills, low time in game new player.

"No, what I'm trying to do is change a mechanic where a small group of players have the power to arbitrarily deny the ability to run incursions to everyone else in highsec."
Put another way you do not want one small group of players to affect YOUR game play. Following this logic we should eliminate war decs because that is one small group affecting the game play of others. We should eliminate suicide ganking because that is another small group of people affecting the game play of others. I can go on on for days on this one but as others have said that is the nature of EVE get used to it.

"My OP was about suggestion to keep the mothership site from being taken down so quickly, and denying highsec players the ability to run incursions."
No you OP is about protecting a very small segment of the high sec player base and their ability to farm ridiculous amounts of ISK at the expense of all of the other players in the affected systems. If you really cared about getting others into incursions then you and all of the other "normal" group of incursions runners would gladly step aside and allow others to take your spots in the fleets. However based on my experiences and those of several dozen other players I know that have tried incursions this is not the case. Those that are in a fleet want to stay in so THEY can make the ISK and LP, they DO NOT want to step out and give someone else a chance.

Not sure what to say here...

1. Categorically false - I personally amassed 600 mil isk within 2 months without Plex or gifts. it's perfectly viable running L4 missions with buddies or mining in a barge. There are communities (like WTM) that specifically cater to new players, are more flexible with fits, and are definitely happy to work with newbros. There are other communities that are more choosy, but even most of them cater to new players. If anything the problem these communities face is lack of interest outside peak time zone. Almost none of them can run 23/7 because of lack of numbers. Another issue is that everyone goes to the same few established communities, and is unwilling to try out new communities, which leads the existing communities to get jammed, especially during peak times. I personally started running HQs at 2.5 months char age, and no one asked me what level my Minmitar Battleship was at ( for the record, it was at 3). But whatever, this is not relevant to my OP.

2. No, I don't want any one group of players to have the power to completely shut down highsec incursions. Just like I would object to shutting down all L4 missions, or shutting down all Ice Belts, or shutting down all highsec markets. No one group of people should be able to entirely remove highsec incursions from Eve, and deny everyone else the chance to run them.

3. Of course people in fleets don't want to voluntarily leave. Who wants to stop having fun and making isk? The solution is to form more incursion communities and make more fleets. The problem is that no one wants to run/FC, since it is a lot of work, and you face a deluge of criticism and complaints. If you think it is so easy, please step up.

Stop asking for a dev solution to a player-created problem which isn't really a problem.

This is again trying to force PvP on PvE players. I personally don't play Eve for PvP, I play it for PvE. I accept that suicide ganking is an important part of the game, and preventing it from happening to me is an important part of my playstyle. Other than that, and much like miners and mission runners, I'm looking to PvE. It would be like some group finding a way to make all mining or mission running impossible, and then telling the miners and mission runners to go wardecc them. That's not what they want to do - they want to mine and run missions, not fight PvP wars. Thankfully the mechanics of highsec are designed so that you can avoid that type of PvP by being in a 1-man or NPC Corp, and then happily live your PvE life. Since I fully support those mechanics, obviously I won't be supporting the nerf of such organizations.

What I will do is to advocate a solution, when, as now, a group of players has found a way to prevent everyone in highsec from engaging in incursion PvE, day after day, without real consequences. Much like no one can "turn off" L4 mission or mining, no one should be able to arbitrarily "turn off" all highsec incursions at will, just to spite everyone else. Because that is not what Eve is about.

No, I don't want any one group of players to have the power to completely shut down highsec incursions. Just like I would object to shutting down all L4 missions, or shutting down all Ice Belts, or shutting down all highsec markets. No one group of people should be able to entirely remove highsec incursions from Eve, and deny everyone else the chance to run them.

Then let's be clear on your statements in the first place:

YOU ARE ALREADY INVOLVED IN ONE TYPE OF PVP.

There are only so many of those sites per system, per incursion. What you do is deny others the ability to run the sites you are running and "compete" with them to get to those sites first.

That is a form of PvP just like "world bosses" being taken by "elite" groups in other PvE games - they prevent others from doing those bosses by taking them first - and that is why they first came up with "instances" for bosses in those games.

So someone else finds a boss and finishes it, stopping your farming of "trash around the boss" and you're hacked off about it?

Suck it up. That is their beating the encounter and nothing more.

You're already doing something similar to any others who might be interested in trying those sites while asking CCP to deny others from doing a larger target.

That is special treatment for just 1 "farming" style of play and very inappropriate "PvE wise" to ask after and support.

I too wish for OP to explain why there's a problem with players being able to affect each other in a sandbox game.

Unfortunately, I don't think he's ever going to do anything other than say "players shouldn't have the power to shut down other players' activities" without explaining why.

I've addressed that (repeatedly). There is no game mechanic available to shut down all highsec mission running, all highsec mining, all highsec hauling, all highsec trading, etc... Certainly not to shut it down for 12-36 hours with a few friends and a minimal amount of effort. Similarly, there should be no mechanic to shut down all incursions in highsec like that. Imagine if there was a site - "highsec trading embargo site" - that if you ran with 40 battleships would shut down the Eve Market for 24 hours. Would anyone thing that's a good idea?

There isn't any game mechanic because this is a sandbox. We don't rely on game mechanics to do things that player interaction can handle just as well (if not better). Players are the mechanic to shut down missioning, players are the mechanic that can, will and do shut down mining, players are the mechanic that shut down shipping, and players are the mechanic that shut down Incursions.

Why is that bad? Why shouldn't it be this way? You still have not answered.

Because to shut down missioning you have to go kill every single mission runner, ditto with mining, etc... With incursions if you complete 3 15 minute sites you shut down incursions in all of highsec for everyone. If you want to globally shut down incursions you should need to do the same thing you would for any activity, go and suicide gank all the active participants, etc....

Except that incursions are designed around being a place for higher skill players to showcase their skills, and their fits by winning. The contest mechanic being based around applied DPS and only rewarding one fleet supports my argument that it is MEANT as an E-Peen measuring stick. One part of such a showoffy, E-peen fueled gaming style is the ability to tableflip. This is the classical table flip as applied to EVE.

Shutting down incursions (which were intended to be mobile, and short lived originally) fits the lore, the intended mechanics and the mindset initially intended. All of the claims that a player should be able to run incursions in 2 months ignores that these characters are completely unready for a regular fleet, do miniscule damage and are generally a drain on a fleet. The lowest SP toons that I can really consider "ready" are m4 arty maelstroms with a full t2 fit, which clocks in around 7M SP.

incursions were not designed as a "kill the boss and move on" gameplay element - they were designed so that it was mutually beneficial for communities to keep the boss up for a reasonable amount of time and complete more sites.

Because to shut down missioning you have to go kill every single mission runner, ditto with mining, etc... With incursions if you complete 3 15 minute sites you shut down incursions in all of highsec for everyone. If you want to globally shut down incursions you should need to do the same thing you would for any activity, go and suicide gank all the active participants, etc....

Now, back to the question you keep dodging: why is it a problem that your gameplay can be affected by others in a Multiplayer PvP Sandbox game built around that core principle?

Not empty quoting.

http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Preparing_for_Incursions

I would be more than happy to have a 2 month char with this skillset in my fleet. By 3 months the guy is an absolute asset. Obviously if you train in an unfocused manner you are a liability. But as a guy who only focused on combat missions i was more than ready for incursions at 2.5 months (and indeed started to run them consistently with multiple communities).

you want a solution then i suggest you get yourself into a blackbird and join me and my blackbird/falcon fleet on the mom gate.

this is eve harden yourself up grow a pair of hairy nuts, get into a fleet with us and the many other pist off pilots who have had enough of those silly dress wearing sisssy in tvp and isn , and do something about it yourselves

ARE you all sheep, shouting to daddy to come fix this.... its not fair, or are you at the point where the time has come to stop this shite once and for all by doing something about it.


the bob (band of blackbirds) channel exists to co-ordinate mom fleet disruption operations.

You want this stopped? then get out your shiney ATM ships

the fleet will need pilots from all timezones and all skill levels.

get off this forum and into your ships. youll see me floating about in local. mail me for invite to channel.

you want a solution? there is your solution

thread closed

get on with it

Dev, can I (as OP) ask that this thread now be locked?

There is no further purpose to it. It's just devolved into whining

To be said that a thread has devolved, it would have had to not be whining to begin with.

He never did answer the question. I should have known not to expect much after DJ Auger featured him on the "Ragequit Theatre" portion of his EVE Radio broadcast a few weeks ago.

I already answered that (repeatedly). Do you have a link for this radio segment? I never "ragequit" from anything, but should be amusing nonetheless. No one contacted me btw, generally you do that as a fact-check, or to let the person respond. Just saying.

Perhaps you should send him an angry EVEmail about it.

I already answered that (repeatedly). Do you have a link for this radio segment? I never "ragequit" from anything, but should be amusing nonetheless. No one contacted me btw, generally you do that as a fact-check, or to let the person respond. Just saying.

It's just a game, no reason to get angry. I was hoping it would be entertaining and fun.

You know someone is going to be upset after you harm him.

Given that just lost weeks or months worth of effort they are going to be in a far more emotionally vulnerable state than you are

You have proven that you dislike the actions of others and that their actions are a problem for you. (Proof of a personal preference consists of stating that preference. It's super easy to do, which is why it's not the question I've been asking.)

That is quite different from showing that the ability of other people to affect your gameplay is a problem in a Multiplayer PvP Sandbox based around that exact principle.

To put it a little more plainly:
Showing "I don't like what people are doing" is not the same as showing "People shouldn't be able to do it"

If you truly believe you've answered the question, please feel free to provide a link to the answer and explain it. It's too well hidden for me to find.

My answer was (once again) that it is impossible to shut down mission running/mining/trading in all of highsec except by going and ganking etc... every mission runner/miner. Shutting down all incursions simply requires a few ships and an hour or two. That's the imbalance I don't like, and I simply want the incursion mechanic made similar to the other PvE mechanics that cannot be arbitrarily expunged from highsec by a few people with some battleships and some free time.

has not engaged many of the PvE incursion runners who my suggested would affect. Thanks.

My answer was (once again) that it is impossible to shut down mission running/mining/trading in all of highsec except by going and ganking etc... every mission runner/miner. Shutting down all incursions simply requires a few ships and an hour or two. That's the imbalance I don't like, and I simply want the incursion mechanic made similar to the other PvE mechanics that cannot be arbitrarily expunged from highsec by a few people with some battleships and some free time.

As far as the anger stuff, I'd prefer to keep it in the other thread - but generally actions in a video game can cause emotional upset, especially to people who have invested significant time and effort involved. For more calm and reasoned people, of which I hope I am one, I realize that ultimately it's just a virtual entertainment experience, and quell any emotional responses to it. Unfortunately, and quite expectedly, many others are unable to do so, and in-game harm can negatively affect their real life emotional state.


Now Devs can we please lock this thread? It's gotten way off track, and has not engaged many of the PvE incursion runners who my suggested would affect. Thanks.

[
Now Devs can we please lock this thread? It's gotten way off track, and has not engaged many of the PvE incursion runners who my suggested would affect. Thanks.

If by a few ships you mean 80 people used to working together putting a proper fleet on the field with a correct balance, a highly skilled FC and a good Booster backing them up then yes.
Otherwise no. 80 People working together and you want to dismiss them as 'a few people'. Seriously?