EVE Search - Sticky:Incursion fixes/feedback thread

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sticky:Incursion fixes/feedback thread

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
El Geo Pathfinders. 7	Posted - 2012.02.06 17:26:00 - [361] - Quote Petrus Blackshell wrote: Andski wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Degren wrote: Make the incursions create a temporary lowsec system of a normally high sec =P No thanks. This is yet another nuke from orbit attempt. because you're a risk averse publord? I had to read that twice. I thought you said "pureblood" at first, and was really confused. i dont think it should make all the systems in a constellation lowsec, but a couple would add more to eve as a 'sandbox' than what we currently have, it would also create a few systems that have less of a farming population creating a gap for people who are willing to take the risk and i can pretty much guarentee they'll be tonnes of oppertunity for the more adventurous players or the easy alternative which would see more of an equal spread over all the empire factions space, just make incursions available to any constellation, as currently they dont spawn in mixed sec const i believe?
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 144	Posted - 2012.02.06 20:51:00 - [362] - Quote I swore I would not get into this again, but John Turbefield (CCP), has provided HARD, REAL numbers about Incursions, and other PVE numbers for the entire month of January. Let's have a look at them, shall we? BTW, these are from his twitter feeds YESTERDAY. 4.37tn ISK paid out in agent mission rewards in Jan 2012. 8.13tn ISK paid out in Incursion rewards in Jan 2012. 27.03tn ISK paid out in NPC bounty rewards in Jan 2012. The total for those 3 numbers is 39.53 trillion. Incursion payments were 8.13/39.53 = 20.56% of ALL PVE payouts in ALL of Eve in January. That of course does not include loot and faction items dropped in plexes and from rats. Only loot dropped by Incursion rats are the potential BPC's, which are usually scooped by Ninja thieves in high sec. So the impact of Incursions on PvE total pay is significantly less than 20% of the total payouts. And given that many of those running Incursions would be grinding ISK in those L4's and plexes anyway, Incursions are a DROP IN THE BUCKET when it comes to PvE pay in Eve. So enough of the hyperbole and lies from all the griefers and general asshats. CCP, leave Incursions alone. I could envision a change in the payout structure so the more complex sites get a better payout and VG's slightly less, but NO OTHER changes are necessary.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 630	Posted - 2012.02.06 22:14:00 - [363] - Quote Agreed. That right there breaks though the lies flowing about incursions. Incursions are just another PVE element that involves grouping. There is NO significant incursion inflation. So again. lets do simple changes that helps in the long run instead of try to push CCP to nuke incursion from orbit. - Change Vanguards so they have to be completed in full. Field must be cleared. (This is mainly to make things better for the nonshiny fleets) - Boost payout on Higher than Vanguard sites Job done! There are some good ideas but most here are from people wanting to nuke incursion from orbit.
Ammzi Imperial Guardians Wall of Shadow 808	Posted - 2012.02.06 22:46:00 - [364] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Agreed. That right there breaks though the lies flowing about incursions. Incursions are just another PVE element that involves grouping. There is NO significant incursion inflation. So again. lets do simple changes that helps in the long run instead of try to push CCP to nuke incursion from orbit. - Change Vanguards so they have to be completed in full. Field must be cleared. (This is mainly to make things better for the nonshiny fleets) - Boost payout on Higher than Vanguard sites Job done! There are some good ideas but most here are from people wanting to nuke incursion from orbit. Forcing fleets to kill the entire field doesn't help the non-shiny fleets, Endeavour. PS: Your nuke from orbit argumentation/statement really gets on one's nerves after the first fifty times. quote CCP Spitfire "Hello Im Blue,"
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1947	Posted - 2012.02.06 22:51:00 - [365] - Quote endeavour is basically some NPC corp alt/roleplayer who unironically states that there is a nullsec ~cOnSpIrAcY~ to nerf incursions because CTA numbers are low i mean it has nothing to do with high-risk nullsec anoms paying 60m/hour while low-risk highsec vanguard farming pays 100m+ per hour, nope not at all his opinion is of no consequence, you see andski for csm7~
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 630	Posted - 2012.02.07 04:49:00 - [366] - Quote Ammzi wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Agreed. That right there breaks though the lies flowing about incursions. Incursions are just another PVE element that involves grouping. There is NO significant incursion inflation. So again. lets do simple changes that helps in the long run instead of try to push CCP to nuke incursion from orbit. - Change Vanguards so they have to be completed in full. Field must be cleared. (This is mainly to make things better for the nonshiny fleets) - Boost payout on Higher than Vanguard sites Job done! There are some good ideas but most here are from people wanting to nuke incursion from orbit. Forcing fleets to kill the entire field doesn't help the non-shiny fleets, Endeavour. PS: Your nuke from orbit argumentation/statement really gets on one's nerves after the first fifty times. It does. You should know the advantage the shiny fleets have in this department with heavy faction gear. Besides its a needed change regardless on my views on imbalance of shiny/nonshiny. As for your nerves. I don't care. If they are getting on them it is because your betrayal is looking more and more for not. The facts show that your wanting to nuke incursions is completely unneeded and that incursion inflation mass effects on the economy are a fantasy. And Andski goons are an exemption for this. Because of the requirements to be part of SA to join it takes a real dedicated effort to be part of your group to start. You don't lose members to incursions much and your own CSM member stated positively about incursions and how goons run them. The proof showing with high blue bar times when they appear in goon and co space. I doubt you even see your enemies (or friends) mails basically forcing members into CTA/Logoff situations. I did. I know the want of power to control members and to think that they don't want the power back would be foolish. As for your income comparison which is silly to start because many nulsec folks NAP it up and run alts to run anoms which is much harder to do for incursions (FCs want 1 player one client in fleets) You don't have to worry about drunk logis, Fake logis, Fake gank fleets, Fit and Skill liars, etc.. etc... Then add in time between sites. Larger fleets suffering leaves between sites forcing sometimes long recruiting. Unstable connections, unknown voice compatibility. Incursions need small changes and boosts to payout of higher sites. Not nukes from orbit.
Tenris Anis Schattenengel Clan 32	Posted - 2012.02.07 14:03:00 - [367] - Quote Andski wrote: endeavour is basically some NPC corp alt/roleplayer who unironically states that there is a nullsec ~cOnSpIrAcY~ to nerf incursions because CTA numbers are low i mean it has nothing to do with high-risk nullsec anoms paying 60m/hour while low-risk highsec vanguard farming pays 100m+ per hour, nope not at all his opinion is of no consequence, you see While I made around 60m/h with nullbear anoms, and while I made even more with carebear L4s, I have yet to make 100m+ per hour with vanguard farming. Maybe I should start a something awful account to get into the right vanguard fleets for this? Mine tend to waste at least 5 minutes per hour for pauses (honestly actually mostly more than 10minutes per hour), lose sometimes contested sites and do not wait just for me to appear online to invite me instantaneous. Furthermore I do not have jumpbridge network which will bring me to the next incursion in no time ... ... goons seem to have a few advantagues with their incursions I guess. Space big enough to have nearly as much incursions as amarr, short travel in "safe" space. How long did you say you must be part of sa? 18 months?
Morgals Sturm Reich Sturmgrenadier Syndicate 7	Posted - 2012.02.07 16:31:00 - [368] - Quote Contesting a site should be more chance based. If a fleet does 45% of the damage they should have a 45% chance of winning the site. So contesting is still valid and you still want to max dps and shinny fleets still have better odds...it's just not 100% Looking for a mature, adult gaming community that has been active in EvE since 2004?Recruitment is open! Come join our public channel and get to know us. SGHQ-PUBLIC [url]http://sgeve.dai-coar.com/[/url]
xxanjoahir Hedion University Amarr Empire 13	Posted - 2012.02.07 18:15:00 - [369] - Quote LOL-ing at all you "ASSHAT - INCURSIONS MUST DIE THEY ARE SPOILING THE GAME" - BULLSHIT... Proof that these are just a form of pve and a great (for those that understand eve) EMERGENT game play. Now quit the bullshit and enjoy farming or griefing... Jury is out on this...
Tenris Anis Schattenengel Clan 32	Posted - 2012.02.07 19:01:00 - [370] - Quote Morgals wrote: Contesting a site should be more chance based. If a fleet does 45% of the damage they should have a 45% chance of winning the site. So contesting is still valid and you still want to max dps and shinny fleets still have better odds...it's just not 100% I have seen shinny fleets failing against well played mixed fleets of maelstroms, geddons and other t1 ships ... why you want to decide by luck instead of competence?
KrakizBad Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension 341	Posted - 2012.02.07 23:07:00 - [371] - Quote Nuke incursions from orbit and move them to losec. +1 for the temp losec idea. http://i.imgur.com/cOmMP.gif
Dare Devel Perkone Caldari State 14	Posted - 2012.02.08 07:25:00 - [372] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: I swore I would not get into this again, but John Turbefield (CCP), has provided HARD, REAL numbers about Incursions, and other PVE numbers for the entire month of January. Let's have a look at them, shall we? BTW, these are from his twitter feeds YESTERDAY. 4.37tn ISK paid out in agent mission rewards in Jan 2012. 8.13tn ISK paid out in Incursion rewards in Jan 2012. 27.03tn ISK paid out in NPC bounty rewards in Jan 2012. The total for those 3 numbers is 39.53 trillion. Incursion payments were 8.13/39.53 = 20.56% of ALL PVE payouts in ALL of Eve in January. That of course does not include loot and faction items dropped in plexes and from rats. Only loot dropped by Incursion rats are the potential BPC's, which are usually scooped by Ninja thieves in high sec. So the impact of Incursions on PvE total pay is significantly less than 20% of the total payouts. And given that many of those running Incursions would be grinding ISK in those L4's and plexes anyway, Incursions are a DROP IN THE BUCKET when it comes to PvE pay in Eve. So enough of the hyperbole and lies from all the griefers and general asshats. CCP, leave Incursions alone. I could envision a change in the payout structure so the more complex sites get a better payout and VG's slightly less, but NO OTHER changes are necessary. This * Incursion in high sec are over populated. * For organised group getting into a site is no problem but for random players the wait time could be too long. * Site contesting is so rampant that Faction/T2 fitted ship is a must required, that calls for lot of investment so risk. * Above all it gives Random eve player the experience of playing in a fleet environment in high sec. Moving incursions to low or 0.0 completely, may not kill the ISK making capabilities of high sec players, since they will find other alternatives, but it will definitely kill the fleet based experience. My money would be on lowering payouts based on time spent per site (Zapping Vangaurds in 10 mins or less). But assault site definitely need to give higher payouts for the amount of trouble it gives.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 630	Posted - 2012.02.08 07:51:00 - [373] - Quote Vanguards just need to be force field clearing. That will lower isk/hr anyway. Then boost payments fort he Assault and HQ fleets and your are done!
Wyte Ragnarok 6	Posted - 2012.02.08 11:42:00 - [374] - Quote Dare Devel wrote: * For organised group getting into a site is no problem but for random players the wait time could be too long. Isn't this what CCP want and half the point of Eve. Don't sit in a corp by your own and join people who share similar interests in Eve.
Kithran Curaursi United Corporate Futures 21	Posted - 2012.02.08 13:17:00 - [375] - Quote OK first I'll admit I haven't waded through every page of this thread but based on what I have seen so far I think the wronq question is being asked and answered here. CCP need to state clearly what their aims and goals for incursions are. If the goal is an incursion should last at least a day suggestions about having no more sites appear once the mom has spawned are pointless (I believe it was CCP Soundwave who stated in the video at last year's Fanfest that CCP were wanting them to last at least that long.). For that goal you need to look at things like decreasing the amount of influence reduction you get from a single site (probably to something like 1/5 of what it is at the moment). If the goal is encouraging more people to group up for pve activities then suggestions about reducing or removing incursions in high sec are pointless (reducing opportunities to do something is not going to encourage people to do that something). For a goal like that you need to look at things like increasing the number of incursions you can have and maybe adjusting the algorithm that governs where incursions spawn so they are more spread out (if you aren't going to travel 30 jumps to an incursion in amarr you aren't goign to travel 25 jumps to another incursion in amarr that is only 7 jumps from the first one). Kithran
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1989	Posted - 2012.02.08 13:31:00 - [376] - Quote Tenris Anis wrote: While I made around 60m/h with nullbear anoms, and while I made even more with carebear L4s, I have yet to make 100m+ per hour with vanguard farming. Maybe I should start a something awful account to get into the right vanguard fleets for this? Mine tend to waste at least 5 minutes per hour for pauses (honestly actually mostly more than 10minutes per hour), lose sometimes contested sites and do not wait just for me to appear online to invite me instantaneous. Furthermore I do not have jumpbridge network which will bring me to the next incursion in no time ... ... goons seem to have a few advantagues with their incursions I guess. Space big enough to have nearly as much incursions as amarr, short travel in "safe" space. How long did you say you must be part of sa? 18 months? there have been like 3 incursions in our space to date, huh? yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7 got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TheLast Poofighter Squirrel Horde Habitat Against Humanity 0	Posted - 2012.02.08 13:41:00 - [377] - Quote Ziranda Hakuli wrote: TheLast Poofighter wrote: Rather than reduce the isk/LP rewards - why not just contrict the pipe a bit? Limit 1 incursion constellation in High Sec, 2 in Low Sec, 3 in Null. I think fewer sites in highsec could make for some interesting sandbox dynamics. Or offer the option for real world rewards like tacos and beer. Or vodka and bread... the idea sounds good but one problem. you are suggesting to get more people who have no desire to go out into low sec or 0.0 space. Yes i know empire space is care bear land but you also seem to forget that the mighty 0.0 alliance hide behind their wall of Blues doing their care bear stuff. The risks are there for both and many people are tired of the BS politics that go on out there forcing them to go back is wrong. CCP released this content for everyone. i think everyone just needs to grow and grab a cotex that are still crying about things and get over it and move on. quote=DarthNefarius] TheLast Poofighter wrote: Rather than reduce the isk/LP rewards - why not just contrict the pipe a bit? Limit 1 incursion constellation in High Sec, 2 in Low Sec, 3 in Null. I think fewer sites in highsec could make for some interesting sandbox dynamics. Or offer the option for real world rewards like tacos and beer. Or vodka and bread... No need to constrict... they are ONLY 1/3 the mission bounties & 10X the fun If you constrict them you'll only be constricting the fun... because of a minority of whiney NULL SECers who think everyone should be their whipping boy[/quote] No need to constrict... they are ONLY 1/3 the mission bounties & 10X the fun If you constrict them you'll only be constricting the fun... because of a minority of whiney NULL SECers who think everyone should be their whipping boy[/quote] Ziranda - I don't see how reducing the number of high sec incursions (NOT eliminating) - limits access to content. It's still there only sites are challenged more often - which I see resulting in all kinds of interesting sand box dynamics. If nothing else it enriches the people element which is far more enriching than any content ccp can provide. To Both - The suggestion of politics not happening in HS incursions confuses me. I would ask what about armor vs. shield, shiny vs. not shiny, banning from player "public" channels, "certified" FC squabbles, Bricksquad and Goon headshots, Wardecs, reimbursement funds, stealing loot, challenging sites... I could go on but I think when you dump a buttload of isk into a portion of the game there will be politics and the lines that differentiate between Heads of Null Sec alliances and the admins of public fleet channels becomes blurred. To DarhtNefarious - I don't see how reducing the bounties to solo level 4's with much greater risk of losing your ship increases the fun factor. I dont understand the Nullsec whipping boy argument and neither of you mention anything about LS. If anything LS could use a few buffs. Nor do you fellas mention anything about the idea regarding "Incursions for real world goods" - I think this would be awesome as I really need a new pair of underpants.
xxanjoahir Hedion University Amarr Empire 13	Posted - 2012.02.09 13:20:00 - [378] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: I swore I would not get into this again, but John Turbefield (CCP), has provided HARD, REAL numbers about Incursions, and other PVE numbers for the entire month of January. Let's have a look at them, shall we? BTW, these are from his twitter feeds YESTERDAY. 4.37tn ISK paid out in agent mission rewards in Jan 2012. 8.13tn ISK paid out in Incursion rewards in Jan 2012. 27.03tn ISK paid out in NPC bounty rewards in Jan 2012. The total for those 3 numbers is 39.53 trillion. Incursion payments were 8.13/39.53 = 20.56% of ALL PVE payouts in ALL of Eve in January. That of course does not include loot and faction items dropped in plexes and from rats. Only loot dropped by Incursion rats are the potential BPC's, which are usually scooped by Ninja thieves in high sec. So the impact of Incursions on PvE total pay is significantly less than 20% of the total payouts. And given that many of those running Incursions would be grinding ISK in those L4's and plexes anyway, Incursions are a DROP IN THE BUCKET when it comes to PvE pay in Eve. So enough of the hyperbole and lies from all the griefers and general asshats. CCP, leave Incursions alone. I could envision a change in the payout structure so the more complex sites get a better payout and VG's slightly less, but NO OTHER changes are necessary. GAME OVER INCURSION MONKEYS GO SWING UP THE OTHER TREE, THE EVIDENCE IS RIGHT THERE AND IS FACT.
S Smith Smithsonian Inc 1	Posted - 2012.02.09 14:00:00 - [379] - Quote I played this game for almost two years. I got a demanding job and a family and cannot devote my entire life to Eve. I started off as a true carebear and grinded lvl4s for ages until a finally made my first billion. For a long time I only played one character but finally got two. I was getting bored with hisec and finally moved to null and joined one of the big alliances. Moving to null has certainly been a lot of fun and it is a completely different game well worth playing. However, life in null as a null noob is expensive and somewhat difficult even though I am in a great corp. I make some ISK from PI, ratting etc but so far I have lost a lot more than I make. However, I feel the current state of the game is actually more or less punishing those who want to do something different than hisec carebearing. It is now possible to earn insane amounts of ISK in hisec with close to zero risk and in a very short amount of time. There are guys in BC fleets making one billion a day in hisec. Does that make sense? Currently the mechanics really favor this play style as it basically means you can play for free PLEXing with very little effort. It has gotten to the point that I no longer feel motivated to play nor to pay more RL money for subs and PLEXes knowing that hisec incursion runners easily earn that kind of money in a few hours per months. In reality, everybody who wants to make descent ISK in this game is more or less forced to play as a hisec carebear, since that is the only logical conclusion one can make considering risk vs. reward vs. real life money and time. Sure, some very experienced players and higher-ups make insane ISK from caps and moons, but that ISK just stays in the hands of those players, even though an entire alliance is needed to actually be able to generate it (but that is a different matter I guess). I have run incursions myself and I could make a living running them, but I don't want to. I don't enjoy that play style. I don't want to play the game as a hisec carebear. So, my options then are to devote even more time to Eve to make a living in null, spend RL money on PLEXs (indirectly letting the hisec bears play for free :) ), move back to hisec or simply quit playing. I have not yet decided what it'll be. I guess I am not really arguing for an incursion nerf, but more to make different play styles equally viable in the game with a basic risk/reward/time ratio in mind.
Dinsdale Pirannha Pirannha Corp 146	Posted - 2012.02.09 18:03:00 - [380] - Quote S Smith wrote: More lies and propaganda Read the post above yours moron. Someone posted a repeat of my post. It has something called FACTS in it. You know, real numbers supplied by CCP. They completely refute all the crap you are saying about Incursions. Now, I know that for most anti-incursions posters, facts and numbers are difficult concepts to handle. But try real hard. Look at the numbers I posted and the calculations. Incursions have minimal, MINIMAL impact on the Eve economy. That is not hyperbole. That is not propaganda. That is not lies. That is FACT, using CCP numbers. End of story.
Ammzi Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow 810	Posted - 2012.02.09 20:32:00 - [381] - Quote Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: S Smith wrote: More lies and propaganda Read the post above yours moron. Someone posted a repeat of my post. It has something called FACTS in it. You know, real numbers supplied by CCP. They completely refute all the crap you are saying about Incursions. Now, I know that for most anti-incursions posters, facts and numbers are difficult concepts to handle. But try real hard. Look at the numbers I posted and the calculations. Incursions have minimal, MINIMAL impact on the Eve economy. That is not hyperbole. That is not propaganda. That is not lies. That is FACT, using CCP numbers. End of story. 20 % ISK for all PVE in EVE is not a "drop in the bucket" like you've stated. quote CCP Spitfire "Hello Im Blue,"
Farang Lo State War Academy Caldari State 3	Posted - 2012.02.10 05:28:00 - [382] - Quote https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67987&find=unread just want to point out how those incursion bears "help" new players get in incursion
KanashiiKami Marvel Comics Galactic Labs Dark Knights of New Eden 0	Posted - 2012.02.10 06:52:00 - [383] - Quote my ideas 1) rework sizes for max number of pilots in a fleet VG - 8 AS - 14 HQ - 28 MOM- 50 why? smaller fleet sizes = faster fleet forming, improves the waiting time to play time. subscribers like more play time and not wait time. however this will increase the difficulty of a site run. 2) contesting site isk/LP should be shared according to total damage % dealt into site. this will help lower skilled fleets to enjoy the game instead of being constantly run over by fleets oversized with highly skilled DPS. is this a nerf to elite fleets? i do not see it that way, on the other hand, by doing so, a fleet will know how much more/less dps they did in a contest. will this introduce more poorly skilled players into incursions? fact--> we are all poorly skilled once, it is up to the FC to select and form his fleet and sort out who he should have on his team. if he chooses a lesser skilled to run with, the fleet will have to live with it or hop to other fleets. fact --> with a smaller fleet size due to point 1, i do not think any FC will wish to try his luck. 3) with down sizing of fleet size, total sansha DPS output dealt to playerbase should decrease accordingly to ensure playability of sites VG - -20% sansha total dps AS - -20% sansha total dps HQ - -30% sansha total dps MOM- -30% sansha total dps this would seem like a nerf BUT ... read on ... 4) with reduced DPS, ALL sites should introduce an extra special spawn that must be destroyed for site completion. new spawn introduced i will suggest be triggered after 2nd last site trigger is in effect. the spawn will consist of 1xsmartbomb armed sansha cruiser (SB strength = 2.5x of a T2 medium SB @ 25km radius effect going at a 8 second interval), 1xsensordampener armed frig, that can target 2 simultaneous targets to cause 500% t2 scripted sensor dampening effect @ 12s interval range of 50km, 1xremoteshieldrep armed cruiser that will effect 500% remote rep capabilities of a med T2 remote shield rep on 1 target @ 10s interval. this spawn is a unique grp and will move in a formation no further than 5km from each other. this spawn will have the following spawn grps per sites: VG - 1 spawn AS - 2 spawns HQ - 3 spawns MOM- 4 spawns yes the repping capability might prove to be a challenge for beyond VG sites, and it is this therefore that will "prove" as a checking "trigger" of the minimum amount of dps a fleet should have and therefore the rep % should be tweaked according to real fleets nominal dps, the 500% i have suggested is an arbituary value it could be 1000% or 200% for all i know. 5) most of the above seem like more of a debuff to sansha spawns, therefore i will like to suggest all sansha spawns recieve their own combat booster/buffing BS hulled ship (non attacking entity) that will do the following non stacking bonuses: VG - +150% shield HP AS - +60% shield HP HQ - +50% shield HP MOM- +40% shield HP this combat booster ship should be rendered invulnerable with shield resistances of 99%. and EHP +500% of normal sansha spawn. it may be plausible that this unit will become prime target in mom/HQ fleets. with the increased HP, the role of the sansha remote repping ships should now be nerfed to only rep @ 20% capacity. 6) with the increased overall EHP of sansha + extra spawn. it is only natural that the site will now take MORE time to complete than usual. and therefore it is only logical that bounties of ISK/LP increase, and by that i would mean a total increase of 70% of bounties across VG, 100% for AS sites and a 150% increase for HQ site and 200% increase for MOM site. MOM site no longer drops loot. but all MOM site pilot now recieve a tradable special insignia token that can be exchanged for special concord named items (that could be the random loot from the SC + some insane amt of LP?). 7) reconfiguration of a incursion cluster each incursion spawn should now be as follows VG - 99 sites (spread over 11 to 15 systems) AS - 15 sites (spread over 5 systems) HQ - 9 sites (spread over 3 systems) MOM- 4 sites (spread over 2 systems) and there is now only 1 hisec site, 1 losec, 1 nullsec. and each site can spawn over 3 adjoining constellations instead of 1. 50% of all initial spawned VG must be destoyed at least once to spawn AS sites, or wait 5days for AS auto spawn 100% of all initial spawned AS must be destoyed at least once to spawn HQ sites, or wait 7 days for HQ auto spawn 100% of all initial spawned HQ must be destoyed at least once to spawn MOM sites, or wait 9 days for MOM auto spawn. when MOM sites spawn, constellation wide all stargate, stations and VG/AS/HQ site-warpgates will be harrassed by a splash of 5-10 orkashu myelens, they do nothing but harrass with ecm. server restarts will spawn the rats if they are destroyed. all 4 MOM sites must be destroyed to end the incursion and trigger LP payout. and MOM sites withdrawal time is set to countdown in 9 days. which means an entire incursion spawn will last maximum 18 full days with the reduced fleet sized groupings, it is hoped to encourage more pilots to try AS/HQ sites. with the increased number of pilots going into incursions, it is only logical that sansha now sends in more troops to occupy "our" space. the above changes is hoped to encourage, a more focused fleet activity rather than just bulldozing thru sites. overall i would say difficulty of sites is increased. while survivability of sites is also up. elite fleets will not find this a problem with their skill and experience in coordination. lower skilled fleets will find it a valauble fleet fighting episode experience. in the end, it is hoped to reduce the fleet forming time by half but increase site clearance times by 1.5x minimum. i believe more experienced FC will have alot to say on the above ... please do :D (constructively of course) thank you for reading
ShipToaster 135	Posted - 2012.02.10 23:30:00 - [384] - Quote This proposed change to wardecs by Kelduum Revaan of eve university, potential CSM member, will have an extreme effect on incursions. You might want to put some feedback on that thread as it will end incursions if it is enacted and as we all know :ccp: have a bit of a hard on for stupid changes in recent months so it could be. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67445 Why wont this ***** signature die? It wont clear. Another bug. How many bugs are in this ***** forum?
KanashiiKami Marvel Comics Galactic Labs Dark Knights of New Eden 0	Posted - 2012.02.11 05:48:00 - [385] - Quote ShipToaster wrote: This proposed change to wardecs by Kelduum Revaan of eve university, potential CSM member, will have an extreme effect on incursions. You might want to put some feedback on that thread as it will end incursions if it is enacted and as we all know :ccp: have a bit of a hard on for stupid changes in recent months so it could be. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67445 would you / anyone care to elaborate ... im kinda slow at seeing the link ... i mean how SNA relates to incursion going bad
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 264	Posted - 2012.02.11 23:42:00 - [386] - Quote Drake: 40M (was < 30M) Tritanium: 4.48 ISK pu (was 3.3) PLEX: 472M (was 350M) Only a pathetic liar could argue prices aren't going up too much. Is it incursions? Is it L4? Don't care. ISK faucets HAVE to be brought back in check. Since CCP have all the stats about which faucet does what, they have to start nerfing each of them till the economy is back to low or no inflation. As of now those who run the faucet activities are getting a massive advantage over those who don't. EvE the second it enforces a "best min max" path, stops being a sandbox and becomes just another sh!tty theme park, where you are "meant to" do this instead of that. Auditing \| Collateral holding and insurance \| Consulting \| PLEX for Good Charity Twitter channel
Mussaschi No Wise Guy's Stellar Economy Experts 9	Posted - 2012.02.12 11:14:00 - [387] - Quote Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Drake: 40M (was < 30M) Tritanium: 4.48 ISK pu (was 3.3) PLEX: 472M (was 350M) Only a pathetic liar could argue prices aren't going up too much. Hard lol here. Taking CCPs last inline post each month PLEX worth 50 Trillion are traded. Coming from another ccp source 8 Trillion have been inserted by incursions in jan. 8 Trillion make the difference for sure, since all incursion incomes are well known exclusively used for PLEX, and this 8 Trillion do make "the" difference. ps. Higher Trit prices are by no means caused by the incredible interesting implementation of mining and the great love it did experience by CCP, the risk of suicide ganking in high or CCP trying to fight mining bots. Higher drake prices have nothing to do with higher trit prices (since you do not need any trit for it).
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 264	Posted - 2012.02.12 12:22:00 - [388] - Quote Mussaschi wrote: [quote=Vaerah Vahrokha]Drake: 40M (was < 30M) Tritanium: 4.48 ISK pu (was 3.3) PLEX: 472M (was 350M) ps. Higher Trit prices are by no means caused by the incredible interesting implementation of mining and the great love it did experience by CCP, the risk of suicide ganking in high or CCP trying to fight mining bots. Higher drake prices have nothing to do with higher trit prices (since you do not need any trit for it). 1) Trit was as boring to mine as it is today since several years ago when it sold for 2.7. Miners were more prone at being suicide ganked before the insurance nerf than they are now. Furthermore the past years we had Hulkageddons, now we don't. Therefore your remark seems misplaced. 2) Drakes are just the "signature ship" but if you check a number of other ships, even ships that are not FOTM PvP nor PvE, they still have higher prices than the past. Furthermore, the minerals basket balanced the trit increase with an harsh high ends decrease. Still, the prices are above than the past. Auditing \| Collateral holding and insurance \| Consulting \| PLEX for Good Charity Twitter channel
ShipToaster 146	Posted - 2012.02.12 19:26:00 - [389] - Quote KanashiiKami wrote: ShipToaster wrote: This proposed change to wardecs by Kelduum Revaan of eve university, potential CSM member, will have an extreme effect on incursions. You might want to put some feedback on that thread as it will end incursions if it is enacted and as we all know :ccp: have a bit of a hard on for stupid changes in recent months so it could be. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=67445 would you / anyone care to elaborate ... im kinda slow at seeing the link ... i mean how SNA relates to incursion going bad and BTW i read that ... and yes its just BS idea ... im glad i didnt join eve uni and have him for CEO No war declaration is needed for you to become a target. All that is needed is for you to be close to one of these null sec creating structures. This makes a lot of new problems for incursions. You can be fleet warped into one of these or you can be asked to warp to someone, either way right smack into a null sec area where you can be killed with impunity. Anchoring these null sec creating structures near gates or stations then bumping ships into them will be a problem for some ships, deploying them around any static ship that is afk for easy kills, deploying one in the mom site (then hiding a dozen stealth bombers to create mass carnage or warping in an even bigger PvP equipped fleet for the kills and the mom). As it is an area classed as null sec space, even if it is in highsec, you can deploy bubbles and use dictors, with all the problems that would entail for point to point travel, and use bombs also which will be a problem for tightly grouped ships using the gate to warp in. This list is what I thought of in a few minutes but I am sure the truly creative can think of all sorts of extra hazards that you will learn the hard way and wont be prepared for. Confused about who to vote for in the upcoming CSM election? This will sort it out! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=68476
El Geo Pathfinders. Mining For Profit Alliance 7	Posted - 2012.02.13 23:46:00 - [390] - Quote again just make incursions available to any constellation inc. mixed sec constellations

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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