Rant on a Common Misconception about Incursion Difficulty

[Solonius_Rex]

@ExcalibursTemplar

TDF banned Machs (except for Yosh), NGA banned Machs and are still running, WTM is so sick to death of sandbagging Mach pilots they’ve made t2 guns a requirement.

Okay, so in other words, both still accept Machs.

@ExcalibursTemplar

As for pulling the spawn it was never about survival it was about pulling the sansha battleships into the path of the vindi blob. So they could apply void much sooner and save on cap from burning. The mara you held fire on so your snipers could alpha it off grid. Both things were about efficiency and running the sites faster and safer.

You cant say “Never about survival” and then go and say “safer”.

@ExcalibursTemplar

As for you disagreeing that with me about TCRC being the easiest but most dangerous contest. Again that shows a clear lack of understanding on your part. In TCRC you burn directly to the tower and melt it with as much dps as you possibly can throw at it. The reason it’s more dangerous for shield is because the outuni are left on grid and switch from target to target. If the Basi aren’t on the ball it’s easy to lose a ship.

Are you guys not targetting the outunis first? We would have snipers target outunis while they burn to the tower.

@ExcalibursTemplar

And if we’re going to willie wave I’m former TDF, TVP & WTM FC currently retired, I’ve also flown with Urborus in lowsec and ran my own lowsec VG group.

What are you talking about? Ive mentioned once, just once, that I was an FC, and everything else was our discussions regarding our own experiences, which is the only way we can discuss this. Why would you see this as “Willie waving”? Have I even once said “Oh i was a huge, really important guy in TVP, I was top dog, everyone came to me on how to run incursions, I was in charge of SRP, I basically ran the group, etc, etc”???

When you say things like “I have seen 40+ shield broadcast in the space in the space of a couple of minutes in sites.”, Ive never seen it, which is why I asked, how often does this happen. Because, depending on what you mean by “couple of minutes”, which is really vague, my guess is, not a lot. And your main point that you started off with, was around “Youre someone from outside the incursion community looking in”. How else am I going to refute that, than by telling you my experience when i was a part of the incursion community?

@ExcalibursTemplar

Even though the ISK is crap compared to other activities in game i do still like to run Incursions for the large group pve activity. There’s nothing like it in game, were 40 people all come together and work as a cohesive unit and try to do there best.

Sure, you can always find someone in 30 rorquals making 100 billion an hour and say the ISK is crap compared to that. But the problem isnt the comparison above, its the comparison below, and compared to a lot of other activities, and the risk involved, the payouts are really, really good.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

And still you fail to show that the risk of the activity has been reduced, by proposing a formal definition.

THIS is what is stupid.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

@Anderson_Geten

The risk is the same.

The existence, yes.

The level, no.

Thats why youre wrong. And until you address that fact, youre still wrong.

[Ms_Steak]

@Solonius_Rex

Anyone whos joined an RVB or Brave Newbies fleet for the first time knows that this isnt that hard.

A herd and organized fleet are 2 completely different things.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Ms_Steak

A herd and organized fleet are 2 completely different things

A herd can become an organized fleet very quickly if the FC starts targetting his herd.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Solonius_Rex

The level, no.

Thats why youre wrong. And until you address that fact, youre still wrong.

that would make sense if you actually defined what the “level” is, which is formal definition of the risk.

You keep repeating the same thing without adressing the issue : if you can’t prove that formally the risk has decreased then your claim is BS.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

that would make sense if you actually defined what the “level” is, which is formal definition of the risk.

You keep repeating the same thing without adressing the issue : if you can’t prove that formally the risk has decreased then your claim is BS.

Weve already been over this.

Youve already agreed with me that players can reduce their risk.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Solonius_Rex

Weve already been over this.

Youve already agreed with me that players can reduce their risk.

And this is completely unrelated to the risk of the activity in itself.
You are complaining that players adapted and reduced the risk, which is stupid : the risk of the activity did not change, the experience of the players made them play in a less risky way.

Your are complaining that players became better at the activity, and so the reward should be decreased, which is completely utterly stupid.

Here :

@Solonius_Rex

And the decreased risk. Which is why the risk VS reward appears to be skewed.

[Nicolai_Serkanner]

@Solonius_Rex

The existence, yes.

The level, no.

Thats why youre wrong. And until you address that fact, youre still wrong.

You’re wasting your time. Andersen will not give in … ever.

[ExcalibursTemplar]

@Solonius_Rex

Okay, so in other words, both still accept Machs.

There are four main Incursion communities at the moment three have banned Machs outright and one after nearly eight years has introduced the minimum requirement of T2 guns. Because everyone is sick to death of mach pilots joining fleets and doing absolutely sod all to contribute.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

You are complaining that players adapted and reduced the risk, which is stupid : the risk of the activity did not change, the experience of the players made them play in a less risky way.

And again, weve already been over this.

You are discussing two different aspects of risk. The existence, and the level.

Youve already admitted that the level or risk has, and can be decreased.

Ill break it down for you since you seem to be somewhat slow.

@Anderson_Geten

the risk of the activity did not change

Yes, the existence of risk has not changed.

@Anderson_Geten

the experience of the players made them play in a less risky way.

Yes, the level of risk has decreased, to become less risky.

@Anderson_Geten

Your are complaining that players became better at the activity, and so the reward should be decreased, which is completely utterly stupid.

Thats what nerfs and buffs are meant to do. CCP looks at the overuse or underuse of a specific meta or tactic, and then changes the game in a way that reflects that.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Solonius_Rex

Youve already admitted that the level or risk has, and can be decreased.

No I did not.
That’s YOUR claim that the risk of the activity has decreased, which is BS.

@Solonius_Rex

Yes, the level of risk has decreased, to become less risky.

No it did not. Players did adapt and gain experience, but the risk of the activity did not change.

@Solonius_Rex

Thats what nerfs and buffs are meant to do.

unrelated. Your claim that the risk of the activity has decreased is BS.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

That’s YOUR claim that the risk of the activity has decreased, which is BS.

No, you wrote this:

@Anderson_Geten

The risk of the activity are still the same, but the experience of the players reduce their loss.

Are you honestly saying that you wrote this, but dont agree that it is true?

Dont be dishonest, Anderson Geten.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Solonius_Rex

Are you honestly saying that you wrote this, but dont agree that it is true?

I wrote this, and it is right, and you claim is wrong, for the reasons I gave.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

I wrote this, and it is right, and you claim is wrong.

@Anderson_Geten

That’s YOUR claim that the risk of the activity has decreased, which is BS.

Clearly it is your claim, too.

[Anderson_Geten]

@Solonius_Rex

Clearly it is your claim, too.

Clearly you need to learn to read.

The risk of the activity has not been reduced over the last years.
If anything, the nerf to resists has increased it.

When you claim the risk decreased, your claim is BS.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

Clearly you need to learn to read.

@Anderson_Geten

Just because you reduce your risk does not mean the activity does not have risks.

You mean like how you “read” that i said the activity does not have risks, when I never said that to begin with?

Sorry, im not going to trust you to judge whether someone has adequate reading comprehension or not.

[Anderson_Geten]

Whatever. Your claim is BS, that’s not trust but fact. The risk of incursion has not decreased.

[Shipwreck_Jones]

@Solonius_Rex
Hey guys, it looks like this conversation has devolved into an argument. Maybe it’s time to agree to disagree?

[Solonius_Rex]

@Anderson_Geten

The risk of incursion has not decreased.

@Anderson_Geten

less risky way

Sure.

[Solonius_Rex]

@Shipwreck_Jones

Hey guys, it looks like this conversation has devolved into an argument. Maybe it’s time to agree to disagree?

But I like arguments and discussions.