| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5581
   |
Posted - 2015.05.06 20:15:35 -
[1] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:baltec1 wrote:Joe Atei wrote:Nerfing something because a small percentage of players somehow managed to succeed in unforeseen circumstances is rude and selfish. FW income was savagely nerfed because just ten people figured out how to make a boatload of cash. It got nerfed also because they pushed it and people were jumping on the bandwagon. Why aren't people jumping on the incursion billionaire train like they were on the FW billionaire train? Because the ISBotter train went off the rails already, but apparently it can still be done with similar efficiency in Vanguard sites, as presented by a few people.  I know you are super butthurt about multiboxers, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to ISBoxer there. This is what happens when you resub to a game you haven;t played in years and have an opinion on everything. Go and learn how to play eve, then come back and we'll listen to your opinions then, k?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5581
|
Posted - 2015.05.06 21:30:50 -
[2] - Quote
GankYou wrote:CCP have to be applauded at their efforts here, especially during the ISBotter period.  Give it a rest, you weren't even here.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6941
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 13:32:17 -
[3] - Quote
CEALAlatriste wrote:"facts" The facts are that incursion isk income is the third highest source of ISK in the entire game yet has only a fraction of the player activity. That would be mildly acceptable if you had to expose yourself to risk in order to run an incursion, but you don't, so you get to do all of that under the protection of concord. Personally I think one of 3 things should happen:
1. Concord no longer protects ships in incursion sites.
2. Payout for highsec incursions should be drastically reduced.
3. Incursion sites should be limited to lowsec/null.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6941
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 14:31:47 -
[4] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Suggestion like "make CONCORD not protect people in sites" would definately lower the income of incursion runners by lowering the bling on their fits which slow down completion time and adding losses which also reduce completion time. The issue is, would the content still be run? The upside to that over removing them from HS though is that bailing out of the content when aggressed is still an option without knowing for sure that every gate out will be camped to catch your evac. Once out of the site, concord protection resumes. Players who are willing to keep an eye out for warning signs of incoming danger or willing to put up a fight would still be able to run them without issues and without rolling blinged ships through lowsec gates.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6941
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 16:08:57 -
[5] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:It would depend on who get what flag following the implementation of different CONCORD behaviour on different grid across a system. Logi getting a flag for repping token damage on a ship and making them valid target would get silly real fast for example. I was thinking no flags, as in the deadspace area is effectively nullsec and once you warp away you are safe. It would allow people to disrupt the incursions and fight if people are slow, not paying attention or want to fight, but have no other effect on the players or system.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6941
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 16:13:51 -
[6] - Quote
Valacus wrote:That isn't even remotely true. No one has definitely proven that high sec incursions > all. The fact it's the 3rd highest ISK faucet just means that it gets used a lot, not that it pumps out ISK like candy. Except of course that handy graph that shows that it's only 1.5% of player activity. If it were a much larger chunk of player activity, then it being 3rd on that list would be less of a worry, but since it is a low use activity, and it is third on that list - and that doesn't even include LP rewards - then it's fairly obvious there's a problem.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6941
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 16:38:03 -
[7] - Quote
Amber Starview wrote:I will never vote to remove any content in eve .....if you think it's op then you are foolish to not be doing it yourself
Other than that eve needs more content not less. What about moving, adjusting or balancing content? I don't think anyone wants incursions to stop existing, they just want the risk to be in line with the rewards.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6941
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 17:02:25 -
[8] - Quote
Valacus wrote:That still doesn't prove that running incursions is more lucrative than any other venture, only that people who do run incursions do a lot of it. You're still making assumptions that are neither proven nor true. The only "problem" is in your head, because you don't like high sec incursions. Well, don't run them then. Go ahead and AFK Ishtar. Lots of people prefer Ishtar ratting over incursions. So what? The fact that people are more willing to run incursions for long hours than they are to rat in nullsec for long hours just means incursions runners are more dedicated. Again, so what? All of the "problems" you see with incursions are all imaginary, and all of the solutions to said problems are all equally as imaginary. The only thing you'll do be removing incursions is remove content from the game. LOL, my only problem is that incursions do rake in far too much isk for their risk. We know for a fact that incursions rake in a huge amount of isk. That's not even up for debate, and if you're going to sit there and pretend the income is comparable with other PVE sources of isk, then that truly is laughable. The problem comes down to the risk you have to gain that isk, which is to say almost none. I'm totally happy for you to keep the level of income which is above that of a null ratter. But to access that income you should have to be vulnerable to attack, i.e. in lowsec. Fair?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6941
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 19:39:33 -
[9] - Quote
Don't worry guys, I got this
Aquilan Aideron wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Aquilan Aideron wrote:My bad for responding to the forum troll. You could clarify WTF you meant instead of calling others trolls... I experienced the event, but did not partcipate. What part needs clarcification in the mind of a Goon? The problem is that you don't seem to know what "firsthand" means.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
| |
|