Please stop replying to these safety alts. They are not interested in having a conversation in good faith.
1 Like
Then peopleâs problem is the amount of isk being made, so CCP should reduce the isk payouts and not the content.
It doesnât matter what they think or if they agree with me, it matters about other people reading the discussion.
itâs the amount of ISK combined with very low risk thatâs the âproblemâ (for wont of a better word) with hisec incursions.
true.
iâll stick with my C5 bearhole thanks. the occasional rage roll fleet dropping on me keeps it interesting. sometimes I get away cleanly, sometimes I lose a ship. all depends where in the cycle I am at the time.
and you donât hear me complaining about having the sites in my system roached by roll-ins while Iâm offline.
There is always risk, both in site and with gankers. Incursion runners are just good at preventing such losses as much as possible, beyond pure stupidity/negligence. People who claim otherwise donât know what they are talking about.
those losses in the first link are NPC losses. So the logi wasnât fast enough, the victim didnât broadcast in time or they were stuck in bastion. thatâs not a âsafetyâ issue, thatâs a terrible players issue.
if you die to NPCs, whose stats and capabilities are very well known, thatâs on you.
the second link is a bunch of bowheads, the two most recent in Uedama both of which were unfit bowheads except cargo expander lows. they were idiots who got what they deserved. itâs certainly not a compelling argument that CCP should intervene and make the hisec incursion community completely free of any consequence.
1 Like
Your definition of what defines safety is severely skewed. People put their ships at risk running sites or traveling. Just because you canât randomly engage anyone you want in highsec making isk without some sort of concord response doesnât make it completely risk free in terms of putting your isk on the line running any sort of content. Like any facet of eve, you learn to mitigate your losses as you progress.
Iâm really not sure what is the point youâre trying to make.
Yes, there is a risk running any site. Those risks are easily ameliorated by doing a little research and figuring out if your ship and fit are capable of dealing with it. If you die to an npc site thatâs been in the game, unchanged, for a decade, well thatâs a you problem.
Yes, there are risks while travelling. Those risks can also easily be reduced, again with a little research and actually fitting your ship for travel. If you know youâre travelling through a gankers hotspot like Uedama, then itâs incumbent on you to decide if the risk is worth it.
Again, i fail to understand what it is you want in all of this.
He wants to have a money-printing guarantee for the content he chose to mass-multibox for making absurd amounts of ISK without other people being able to interfere with that.
The only âriskâ I can see in this activity comes from the multiboxing itself when messing up to end the bastion in time on account #12 or doing any other mistake that wouldnât have happen if he would play on one account only and could actually concentrate on the activity. Or just being careless and not doing the homework. Really, these sites have been solved long ago, a proper equipped fleet simply cannot die unless someone really ***** up badly.
It isnât even like in the Abyss where you have to solve multiple challenges with just one ship and make the correct decisions quickly and risk multiple billion ISK while under time-pressure and gank-risk. Or in WHspace where you have multiple B on the field and can be jumped on any minute by a ragerolling PvP fleet.
Human error is a risk in any aspect of EVE, the nature of managing a grid of 40+ pilots (with or without boxes) just means its more work to mitigate.
Not every fleet is boxed, several fleets run with 40 actual people, with more waiting to get a turn. One of the few PvE content of its scale, like Iâve pointed out I wish CCP would work towards new content that makes use of large scale fleets such as Incursions.
The reason I didnât continue this argument is because it went from âvery little riskâ to âyes of course there is riskâ. There isnât really anything to respond to that.
I make it clear in my OP. I would like an amount of time, to where incursion runners of all TZ can actually move to the focus, to better counter any play against the mom site. Literally nobody can do anything when the person going for it just gets notification, moves to focus, logs off and waits, then immediately pops it as it spawns. I canât explain it any better for you, so I wonât.
1 Like
empty talks, guys, let us address THE ELEPHANT in the room, EVERYBODY KNOWS IT - the ROOT of the problem is MULTI-BOXING !!!
Letâs make a vote to force CCP to remove MULTIBOXING, vote 1 player 1 window for all !!! 
Wow, thatâs some impressive quoting out of context there.
The risks i mentioned are very, very small. Especially when measured against the returns
Yeah letâs âforceâ CCP to dramatically lower their bottom line and player count, this is the best idea in the thread so far. Good job with the well thought out reply.
1 Like
Just need to be open-minded and resourceful and introduce new content, not being EXTRA greedy, and then new players will join and make you rich, this is what should be done, instead of squeezing old players for additional windows 
Think this way - âwhy this exploit become possible?â, I meant incursion farming and fast closing - the answer is MULTIBOXING
1 - ISK farm âexploitâ - 10 paladin 1 man army farm - using MULTIBOXING
2 - this Hawk man - 10+ Leshak fleet closing Kundalini - using MULTIBOXING
3 - other âabusesâ like âeyesâ scouting nullsecs for safe dred and carr farming - using MULTIBOXING
The list could be infinitely long and everywhere the key abuse here is - using MULTIBOXING
MULTIBOXING IS A CANCER THAT IS RUINING THE GAME - because it makes multiplayer game almost a single-player game, because you donât need to interact with players - you just need to buy your own 10 additional windows 
I have run them in 2 hours from spawn to dead, in 2014.
With marauders, if we could roll 2 fleets in already formed for HQs, and run them that way, Travel time +1 hour total.
I multibox, and I interact with multitudes of people daily. Both in incursions and in other aspects of the game. Multiboxing by itself is not the issue in my opinion, you have strayed from the key purpose of this thread, which is to provide suggestions on how to better balance the current state of incursions. No one on the side of incursion runners in this thread has said they are opposed to changing the way things are, we are actively advocating and open to ideas. The biggest complaints and general unhelpful commenting Iâve seen is coming from the other side, that have the opinion that the incursion population should not be allowed to make ISK.
Use the term exploit carefully, I donât think you know what it means.
Was the server shut down because of a lack of player base or was it shut down because of geo-political reasons?
Please provide citation so I can figure this out.
I thought Serenity (Chinese server) was still ticking along�