EVE Search - CCP - End Highsec Incursions

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP - End Highsec Incursions

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1409	Posted - 2015.04.27 21:27:43 - [1] - Quote Estella Osoka wrote: I challenge CCP to put a moratorium on all hisec incursions for 3 months, and only allow lowsec and nullsec incursions. Then see how many of these hisec incursion runners have the balls to man up and run incursion in orher areas. What would that actually prove? If the point is that people prefer the safety of highsec, we already know that, else this thread wouldn't exist.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1409	Posted - 2015.04.27 22:13:41 - [2] - Quote Gully Alex Foyle wrote: Hmmm.... please bear with me as I know nothing of incursions (and red crosses in general, I prefer colored squares)... What if CCP made incursions (or some of them at least) wildly unpredictable? In N. of rats, strength, ewar, etc... Like -50% to +100% of the usual, randomly generated. More risk, less boredom, larger fleets needed (for backup) so ISK/person dialled back a bit. Makes sense? Incusrsions are balanced around a certain player count in each fleet and payouts fluctuate when you deviate from those set numbers. As such forcing more players to be in a fleet likely won't occur. There was some mild randomness when last I ran them but nothing worth noting, could be dialed up quite a bit IMHO. The primary issue though, as with all PvE, is that it's designed to be an income source and thus routinely beaten with a few minimum investments of effort. It pays well because despite the low barrier, that barrier is still several times above most other PvE encounters.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1409	Posted - 2015.04.27 23:30:35 - [3] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Other than that, HTFU and stop attacking people for being successful at EVE. I'm pretty sure most of us don't measure success by trivial things like ISK or KB stats. To me, the most successful people in the game are those who venture to lowsec, nullsec, or WH space, and take great risks in the name of high space adventure. There will be lossmails. Hilarity will ensue. However, it is an injustice that these play styles can't support losses as well as Hi Sec can. That just doesn't make sense at all from any position. Areas with more risk should have more potential income available. They don't. Plant the seeds of content today by removing Hi Sec Incursions and adjusting L4s. Most areas with more risk do have greater income potentials if the numbers gathered by others around here are to be believed. The issue, which has always been and always likely will be, is the capacity to pursue maximum efficiency and likely go uninterrupted that highsec allows. If it were possible in other securities they would dominate highsec isk/hour. Though reducing income has no bearing on loss sustainability when operating in an area where 0 losses is a real possibility.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 02:45:00 - [4] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: I'm not against Hi Sec. I'm for the rest of the game. Simply put, much of the potential content the rest of the game could host is stifled so long as Hi Sec maintains the monopoly on accessible income. Population density is a zero sum game. If you want space to be filled with things waiting to be happen, you have to make that space worth something. At least for me, it's not a rabid, toxic, hate of highsec that wants to see HS incursions go, but rather a desire to see the rest of the game take shape as a dynamic and vibrant stage. Who's more likely to bring new blood into the fray? Someone who logs in his big'ol vindicator once a month and shoots Tama Cerebellum for a few hours, gets his plex, and logs for the month? Or someone who took a chance, lost ships, betrayed someone, got betrayed by someone, made allies, made enemies...etc? I mean they are not mutually exclusive perhaps, but you stand a far greater chance of having interesting things happen when the 'cheese' in the sand box is limited, in a dangerous place, or even better, both. The guy who logs his vindi in is a non-factor in that analogy. The more important question is do "boring" players suddenly become more interesting when their one reason to log in goes away in the portrait you paint? I'm not seeing it, though maybe I'm wrong. What contributes even more to that players irrelevance is the fact that it actually doesn't stand in the way of others doing the other things you describe. They were going on before incursions got here and level 4's were killing the game, they still happen now that incursions are killing the game.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 03:15:20 - [5] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: ashley Eoner wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: It's not just null. You have to move up past Class 5 wormholes (the most dangerous space eve has) to start surpassing the isk per hour you can make in high sec incursions protected by CONCORD and dedicated logistics ships. To make the same or more in low or null sec for the average pilot, you need a CARRIER. If you really believe that and aren't trolling I'm sorry to say but you're bad at the isk game. Carriers are cheap and class 5s shouldn't be so underestimated in earnings. I do giggle at you calling class 5 wormholes to be the most dangerous space in eve... Wormhole space is the most dangerous in EVE, it is no one elses fault if you don't understand that. Carriers. You need CARRIERs, in the single most dangerous par tof EVE space, to match or exceed what can be made in HIGH SEC protected by concord while using su caps. Thanks for helping me prove my point. Maybe something is being missed here but why the fixation on carriers? Why do they have some sort of increased income expectation to you? By that logic should supercarriers be the ultimate ratting machines? Also I think it was stated somewhere that even C3's could match the isk/hour of incursions without caps, granted with significantly more limited farming potential.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 04:10:49 - [6] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Drop Concord protection in incursion systems. Leave the income as is. Need no other changes to the incursion mechanics. Make your 200+ isk/hr, now you deserve it. Not sure why anyone would ever go to one of these over one in actual lowsec.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 04:15:08 - [7] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: By that logic should supercarriers be the ultimate ratting machines? They used to be but CCP nerfed them several years ago. Sounds like my knowledge is outdated then.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 04:25:51 - [8] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Sounds like my knowledge is outdated then. Very. Nobody has ratted with supers since the tracking titan nerf. Well, then I suppose my point stands even further that bigger pricetags don't seem to indicate increased PvE performance, leaving aside the question of a lone pilot vs a fleet mandating activity. Thanks for the education on the matter. Much appreciated.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 04:28:07 - [9] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Mario Putzo wrote: highsec rage They are changing null sov mechanics and we have as a result abandoned several regions. Mario Putzo wrote: Besides, if you want to do something about HS incursions and their risk factor then do it. Mechanics exist in this game that allow you to create risk for them. Easy to say but near impossible to do. You cannot gank these fleets and hope to make anything but a massive loss. They sport hefty tanks, roll with six and up t2 logi ships and pack a lot of firepower. They will rip apart a gank fleet like a knife through butter. Honest question, most incursions sit with the mom exposed for days, leaving a clear course to end the isk making potential while avoiding any more risk of loss than the incursion runners themselves face. Why is this not utilized more often? Also why is ganking usually considered the first thought for a player based solution rather than this.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 04:43:18 - [10] - Quote Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Kaldi Tsukaya wrote: Drop Concord protection in incursion systems. Leave the income as is. Need no other changes to the incursion mechanics. Make your 200+ isk/hr, now you deserve it. Not sure why anyone would ever go to one of these over one in actual lowsec. Lowsec would still be higher risk. When any hostile group has freedom to travel to the doorstep of the constellation under concord protection I can't help but doubt the accuracy of that statement.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 07:22:40 - [11] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Ending this debate demands a thread in F&I, asking for ... ... cutting HS incursion income down to a quarter to see who actually runs them for the gameplay. ... removing CONCORD from sites, because it makes no sense whatsoever that they are there. ... a way to actually disrupt incursion farming. The current situation does not allow for that at all. Wardecs are pointless and suicide ganking does not allow for successfull disruption. In any case are incursions the opposite of what this game is about. There is no way to counter incursioneers successfully, continuously, and there is no amount of ISK that could change that. Well, there is one way, killing the mom.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 07:47:16 - [12] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Ending this debate demands a thread in F&I, asking for ... ... cutting HS incursion income down to a quarter to see who actually runs them for the gameplay. ... removing CONCORD from sites, because it makes no sense whatsoever that they are there. ... a way to actually disrupt incursion farming. The current situation does not allow for that at all. Wardecs are pointless and suicide ganking does not allow for successfull disruption. In any case are incursions the opposite of what this game is about. There is no way to counter incursioneers successfully, continuously, and there is no amount of ISK that could change that. Well, there is one way, killing the mom. Which does not count as interference, because the mom only shows up at the end. The fact that people deliberately let their mom live to squeeze even more ISK out of it is a different topic. lol their mom. I guess disrupt needs defined, killing the incursion in under a day seems pretty disruptive. If defining it as successfully killing the runners, not sure that needs addressed. Not really much reason a 100k EHP ship with logi support needs to be more likely to die in an incursion than anywhere else in the same circumstance. Was there another for of disruption you had in mind?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 08:25:34 - [13] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: I guess disrupt needs defined, killing the incursion in under a day seems pretty disruptive. If defining it as successfully killing the runners, not sure that needs addressed. Not really much reason a 100k EHP ship with logi support needs to be more likely to die in an incursion than anywhere else in the same circumstance. Was there another for of disruption you had in mind? NPC alt. 5.0sec status. Considering that you seem to believe that killing the mom counts as interference or disruption (it doesn't) I guess you're an incursion runner? The mom shows up at the end, when everything is set and done already. Killing the mom would not "interfere" or "disrupt". It would end it. "Interfering" or "disrupting" does not need a definition, because they already have one. Incursioneers might see it as "interference", but them simply not popping the mom out of greed does not change the definition of words. I have used both words, btw, throughout this thread. In anyway does killing the mom count as neither. I guess I can't stress that enough. Interference. Meaning to hinder/stop them temporarily, and force them to counter the interference. I don't really see the difference to "disrupting their activity", btw. What matters is that there is no sane way to force them to stop. There is no sane way to stop/hinder/counter their activities, which is completely unEVE. All options we know are of no use, as has been said in this thread already over and over again. Seeing as the mention of popping the mom dominated the response and we won't agree there lets leave it out. What did you have in mind for some special counter? And why should there be? Why isn't the counter to it the same as the counter to any group of ships of a similar composition? Why does this situation need to be special?
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 08:49:32 - [14] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: So you refuse to acknowledge that "popping the mom" does not have anything to do with interference, but is actually ending the incursion? Because that's what it does. It ends it. It's only interference in the eyes of the greedy people who want to keep milking it. Yes, you're an incursion runner and thus a rather questionable person to discuss this with. Anyways. Feel free to read through the whole thread. There is no need to keep repeating the same things over and over again. Once you have done that and educated yourself on the "why's" and "how not's" we can keep talking. I repeat: There is absolutely no need to keep repeating the same **** over and over again, just because there are people who do not want to do so. You can try this stupid trick with other people. Final response because I won't be trolled into getting this thread closed with a mud slinging contest that drowns out the content. If people are trying to run site and you end those sites it interferes. It's like any other sort of resource interference where one party has the chance to deplete something another is using or exploiting. It's a pretty basic concept. The fact that the act of denial occurs through use of the same mechanic is irrelevant. The way it's being exploited allows that interference to be meaningful to the very people you are trying to effect. To the other point there is nothing in the thread which justifies special interference. There isn't anything in an incursion pocket that dictates a fleet comp should have anything to fear that it otherwise wouldn't save the complications brought by the content itself. I'd ask why you feel otherwise, and have, but I'm confident you won't answer. If your argument for this is that the content is too lucrative then the issue lies there, not with a perceived lack of interference. If you can't take down the fleet outside the site and the difference of being in the incursion doesn't make up the slack you don't deserve to take them down. Also, no, I don't run incursions. I haven't in over a year. I just don't feel your point makes sense and you refuse to clarify. So I guess we're done.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 09:03:03 - [15] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Final response because I won't be trolled into getting this thread closed with a mud slinging contest that drowns out the content. If people are trying to run site and you end those sites it interferes. It's like any other sort of resource interference where one party has the chance to deplete something another is using or exploiting. It's a pretty basic concept. The fact that the act of denial occurs through use of the same mechanic is irrelevant. The way it's being exploited allows that interference to be meaningful to the very people you are trying to effect. To the other point there is nothing in the thread which justifies special interference. There isn't anything in an incursion pocket that dictates a fleet comp should have anything to fear that it otherwise wouldn't save the complications brought by the content itself. I'd ask why you feel otherwise, and have, but I'm confident you won't answer. If your argument for this is that the content is too lucrative then the issue lies there, not with a perceived lack of interference. If you can't take down the fleet outside the site and the difference of being in the incursion doesn't make up the slack you don't deserve to take them down. Also, no, I don't run incursions. I haven't in over a year. I just don't feel your point makes sense and you refuse to clarify. So I guess we're done. It's not trolling just because I refuse to rehash what has been written all over this thread. Thank you for admitting that you are indeed running, or were running, incursions, and thus are a questionable person to discuss the topic with. I'm sorry, but "ending" does not in any way or form equal "interference". Popping the mom would not interfere with running the incursion until the mom shows up. Also, you show that you did not read through the thread and thus have absolutely nothing valid to say. Simply popping in and demanding to know what has been written already ... ... lol yeah, but calling me a troll. That's all you people do. When you are outmatched the other person is a troll. You're a hypocrite and never had anything valid to say. Thanks for your participation. Should have stuck with my guns on the prior post but failing that: I opted out because you aren't interested in a conversation. You refuse to defend your point and only deflect, you dismiss the points of others as "stupid tricks" and your 2nd to last line contains sufficient justification for the accusation of troll along side the series of ad hominem fallacies you started punctuating you posts with. ...and here I am taking the bait. I suppose I should congratulate that victory
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 09:15:15 - [16] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Tyberius Franklin wrote: Should have stuck with my guns on the prior post but failing that: I opted out because you aren't interested in a conversation. You refuse to defend your point and only deflect, you dismiss the points of others as "stupid tricks" and your 2nd to last line contains sufficient justification for the accusation of troll along side the series of ad hominem fallacies you started punctuating you posts with. ...and here I am taking the bait. I suppose I should congratulate that victory There is no need to "defend a point". You fail to read through the thread and want people to rehash what is already being written. This is complete nonsense and can be dismissed completely. If you wished to participate, you would read through the thread. That's all there is to it. Furthermore are you mistaking me for someone like you. There is no "victory". I do not give a single **** about opinions. What matters is facts and reality. You and so many others come here discussing their opinions, as if that had any relevance at all. Most people are completely incapable of seperating "what they see" with "what is actually going on", thus completely vaporising any "arguments" they have in the first place. Thank you for your participation. I will respond again if you have anything relevant to say ... ... but I also will make sure to point out the flaws in what people like you post. Cheers. You haven't actually pointed to any flaw in my post, just lodged insults, also I haven't objected to the idea of your proposed income nerf, just asked why the rules need changed in incursions regarding what a person or group can or can't interfere with.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 09:21:29 - [17] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: And I told you that you can read through the thread and find out yourself. If you refuse to do so, then you have no ground to join in. Just try to think about it for a minute. Every few pages some new person would come up and ask for the exact same thing. This is actual reality in so many other threads and it leads exactly nowhere. Thus ... read up on what's written. It's there for a reason. I've been in this thread reading and responding for a while, well before this chain started with you. There have been posts pointing out the lack of ability to interfere, but as stated, none justifying it. Why should that capacity exist only in the case of an incursion? No one has answered that.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1410	Posted - 2015.04.28 09:52:09 - [18] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: sighs Because it exists for literally everything else that is being done in space, except AFK cloaking, which is a completely different matter and not the topic. (AFK cloaking looks like it is going to be addressed, btw) As you already know by reading through the thread, there is absolutely no sane way to interfere. Wardeccing is pointless, as they will drop corp and reform or simply stay in NPC corps. Suicide ganking is pointless, as there is no sane way to stop an incursion fleet. As baltec1 pointed out, it's not trivial to shoot down a fleet of battleships with logi support. The cost of doing so would far outweigh any potential benefit and still would not make anyone actually leave the field. It has been answered already. You are asking the wrong question. It's not "Why should that capacity exist only in the case of an incursion?". This makes me wonder if you actually play the game. It's "Why should incursions be the only thing that can't reasonably be interfered with by players?" Because ... as has been written already ... it's simply not doable. Incursion runners can run their incursions day and night, all day long. If there was a sane way to interfere then people would obviously be doing it. The question you ask is actually simple to answer. The answer is, if other activities used similar fleet compositions they would be just as difficult and unfeasible to interfere with. Mining doesn't prohibit such a composition. Level 4 missions don't prohibit such a composition. They are highly unnecessary and as such don't occur save rare occasions if at all, but doable to the same effect. I'm aware a tanked BS group is non-trivial to take down, especially with logi support, which seems to be the point of such a configuration. So to the question of why incursions are unique in regard to their inability to be interfered with, it's because they more or less mandate resilient configurations. So I ask as a hypothetical, if I run such a config while missioning, does that create the need to alter missions to allow additional interference? The fact that the content mandates you harden up reducing player capacity to interfere is certainly a reason for reducing income because a factor of risk is all but removed, I just don't see the connection to otherwise changing the rules of how ships work together. To me this is no different to mining in a max tank skiff philosophically; you won't lose your ship unless someone is really determined despite the cost or you make a really dumb mistake.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1448	Posted - 2015.05.12 02:24:27 - [19] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Kashadin wrote: At least the bomber alt makes you ISK from other players (for the most part) and not just magically makes it appear from concord. Nah, its from running FW missions. I thought the implication was selling faction LP being other players through the market.
Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1449	Posted - 2015.05.12 03:44:21 - [20] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: baltec1 wrote: Kashadin wrote: At least the bomber alt makes you ISK from other players (for the most part) and not just magically makes it appear from concord. Nah, its from running FW missions. This. I don't know what possess people who don't know what they are talking about to post in threads lol. LP doesn't come from players, it comes from the game. It's kind of sad when someone argues ignorance about a point that was already clarified as being exactly what you were referring to. But if that weren't the case I suppose this thread would have died ages ago.

Tyberius Franklin Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 1566	Posted - 2015.08.26 03:16:44 - [21] - Quote Algarion Getz wrote: "40 machariels with smart bombs, not even 1 incursioners dead, gankers lost billions to concord" WHAT Are you serious? It's important to bear in mind that the failure was due to the lag induced by the gankers essentially creating a large number of crimewatch events. It's not that the trap wouldn't have worked were the server up to it.