| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Choh
Gallente
   |
Posted - 2011.03.16 20:14:00 -
[1]
The core idea is: changing current pirate NPC ships (scripted dummies) to ships which will be fully identical to common player ones û ships with fitted modules, capacitor, appropriate DPS, with resistances depending on the fitting.
The total number of NPC ships should be decreased in 15-25 times not to ruin the balance of PVE complexity. When we had 20 NPC BS and 40 frigates, now there will be 1-2 BS (depending on fitting) and 3-5 small support ships.
The same change reflects the bounty system: the reward for killing pirate rat will be increased in 15-25 times, the loot will match common rules of drop from players ships (depends on fitted modules).
Facilitated plan of NPC ships changing (I mean missions NPC mostly, but this can be spread out on all other types of NPC ships):
- What do we change to what: we take a group of NPC from current missions (by a group I mean a batch of rats which aggro on you together when you attack anyone of them) and calculate the total DPS and total HP for this group. Then we replace the group with a few ships having actual fitting configurations (like players ships) and matching an old group by DPS\HP parameters. If the group has so called 'elite' rats, it can be replaced by T2 ship like HAC, interceptor and so on.
- To keep current group-by-group aggro on a mission we can do this: instead of rats groups aggo we can trigger a new ship from #1 to warp in and to atack the player (depending on a status of previously aggroed rat ships or just by time triggers).
- Incursion's combat AI scripts, which are applied to Sanshas ships, should be applied to mission pirate ships as well (including lesser probability to aggro on drones, etc).
- The bounty reward for killing a new pirate ship is just a sum of old rewards from ships being a part of the replaced group.
- The loot from a new NPC ship depends on the modules fitted and can also contain additional modules calculated by minerals price to keep the minerals-wise outcome being similar to one from current group of rats.
- The salvage outcome will decrease but it can be compensated by T2 salvage from elite NPC being replaced by T2 players ships analogs.
- The variety of NPC ships can be reached by balancing meta level of modules fitted on a NPC ship and by the difference in fittings. Common NPC ships can fit meta 0-4 modules, overseers can fit fraction modules and so on. The bigger is bounty for the rat the better is its fitting.
- "Skills" of NPC: the analog of player's trained skills influence on ships parameters can be represented by a set static characteristics similar to ones which has a player who trained all depending skills at 3-rd level. With meta 0-4 modules it will differ enough from player's ship to keep player's significant superiority.
The NPC should not spawn from nowhere, there is enough magic in EVE. NPC ships could warp into the area at previously prepared spots instead.
Additional proposal:
Current NPC has a probability of repping its armor\shield. We can also add a chance for NPC ships to warp out from the battlefield and return back being fully repped.
|
Choh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 20:17:00 -
[2]
Advantages of the implementation:
- Reducing the distance between PVE and PVP. The PVE player's tactics will be changed to confront almost even enemies, who can warp out and repair themselves. Thereafter new PVE fittings will greatly differ from current ones, they will be more similar to PVP fittings. For 0.0-sec systems it will be a change of common behavior "all warp inside their POSes fields when a neutral appears in the local". PVE ships will become more capable for PVP, with some limitations of course. For high-sec systems it will be a change of most mission runners mind, getting more used to PVP and as a result - a little enlivening of low-secs and 0.0-secs.
- Decreasing the degree of routine and making PVE less boring. Of course, a real player cannot be compared with a set of combat AI scripts, but it will be a giant step forward from today's situation.
- Increasing the "realistic aspect" of PVE and EVE in whole. NPC will lose their cheating nosferatu and e-war. There will not be Dominixes with 9 turrets and blasters with 45 km optimal. NPC ships will have their bounty more "realistic" and some normal loot. And all this will look appropriate and beautiful. We all want EVE to become better (I hope we do).
- New fittings and new tactics will appear. For instance, close-range fittings, which are almost dead in PVE due to big number of targets (NPC ships), will become actual and perhaps even more preferable in some cases.
- Decreasing the server side load! Even if the complexity of AI scripts will increase, the considerably lesser number of NPC ships will affect the performance only for the better. Let the CCP developers correct me if I'm wrong.
- Making the bot program users's life harder. Especially actual assuming last related publications.
- Relative "bloodless" of the whole operation. For the economy and balance of EVE it will not change a lot: NPC will bring the same rewards from their bounty and resources for the same expenditures. Only one thing which I'm not sure about is a change of T2 salvage extracting amount.
Disadvantages:
- A lot of work for CCP. The scheme described above is a bit simplified and it's obvious that it will take a lot of time and recourses to create new fittings, fine-tuning of AI scripts and redevelopment of PVE locations.
Arguable:
- PVE will change. This is positive for some people, negative for others. Fittings will change, as well as missions and complexes strategy guides. On the one hand it's time for shaking this mire from inside, on the other hand - not all players want this.
- It will be harder to "clan the area" using the method of killing one NPC, rewarping with repping, as every NPC ship will become more tough and strong. On the other side - this is not the supposed way of doing missions. Lack of skills is just a reason of trying less complex locations or missions of lesser level.
Few things which were left off-screen:
- Why to make NPC ships with real fittings? Why don't we just put some similar characteristic numbers of HP, damage, etc?
- It will be nice opportunity to be able to scan the NPC ship's fit to determine his weakest resistance type.
- For excluding a possibility of today's situation repeating. They did it so long ago - fixed rules and let them go. Then the ships and modules were changed, but not the rules. NPC ships with real fittings will be changing with future game mechanics changes, which is absolutely normal for the game process.
- Should NPC ships use drones?
- This is very arguable proposal and just because of that I would say "NO". However the final decision won't come from me, of course.
|
Eclampsia
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 22:52:00 -
[3]
Support with 2 hands!
|
Ark Ferroraider
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 11:32:00 -
[4]
 Quote:
The loot from a new NPC ship depends on the modules fitted and can also contain additional modules calculated by minerals price to keep the minerals-wise outcome being similar to one from current group of rats.
I think, the total loot quantity should be reduced. That is, let 1 killed NPC drops loot as much, as much drops now. NPC's fits loot dependence - I agree.
I consider unnatural a present situation with loot: manufacturers can work on the minerals received from a "meltdowned" loot only, and miners aren't so necessary. It would be more interesting to me to lose in fights against NPC the equipment manufactured from ore extracted by miners, getting in exchange the rare things drops only from NPC and bought for LP. I could try to correlate losses / profits and to be proud, when I achieving good results :) Also it would increase trade in EVE.
Quote:
Additional proposal:
Current NPC has a probability of repping its armor\shield. We can also add a chance for NPC ships to warp out from the battlefield and return back being fully repped.
Maybe not a "chance", let NPCs try warpout when their shields/armor weaken? And even will warpout from a fightspace irrevocably when forces obviously aren't equal, like human players.
Quote:
Decreasing the server side load! Even if the complexity of AI scripts will increase, the considerably lesser number of NPC ships will affect the performance only for the better.
I think, will decrease not only loadings on the server, also on the client. I want :)
---
Mainly - I support this offer. |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:46:00 -
[5]
i would support reduction of NPC ships with increase in DPS/tank, but there is no need to have them fitted with modules. NPC ships are there to offer certain amount of challenge and then die. they don't fit ships. it would be adding needless complexity. also, having them drop fitted modules is big no. market is already choking full. tho, looking into meta modules that don't drop (for example, BCS and shield boost amps) would be worthwhile.
________________________________
: Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel - [jedi handwave] "There is no spoon." |
Tub Chil
|
Posted - 2011.03.20 12:56:00 -
[6]
supported because 1 ship killing 100 ships is ******ed. PVE needs to be changed
|
Choh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.21 23:21:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Choh on 21/03/2011 23:24:00
Edited by: Choh on 21/03/2011 23:21:25
What, tl;dr?
Upd, pre-discussion was here (eve-ru.com community).
|
Beezon
The Warp Squad
|
Posted - 2011.03.23 19:02:00 -
[8]
Totally agree.
Missions are fun when there is challenge.
So let it be! Unpredictable mission vs. player-like ships brings back fun and risk.
|
Pernatus
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 10:57:00 -
[9]
Up!
Totally agree 
|
Johnny Lou
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:19:00 -
[10]
I'm all for changing mission NPC's and I've seen some good ideas here. Less ships to destroy with more realistic fits sounds nice as long as the rewards are somewhat the same.
So, mission bounty should remain the same (by giving higher bounty to the fewer NPC's).
As for the loot, maybe have each ship drop a faction module and only meta modules. This should make up for the decrease in volume by increasing quality. It should also give miners a purpose again.
Salvage should also increase in quantity and drop some T2 salvage as well from time to time.
Drone NPC's.. well.. they might as well remain unchanged, for now.
|
|
|
Gangster101 PureLove
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 11:56:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Gangster101 PureLove on 28/03/2011 11:59:40
]
Originally by: Tub Chil
supported because 1 ship killing 100 ships is ******ed. PVE needs to be changed
So killing one npc ship in a pve pocket will make it seem epic? I don't mind the laser show and prefer the 100 to 1 scenario lol
Npc intellegence coming soon >> 
|
Gibbo3771
|
Posted - 2011.03.28 14:19:00 -
[12]
I was seriously thinking about this a few weeks ago....
I would rather land in a belt with an Angel Throne with 25mil bounty and it has proper EHP and is assisted by 3-4 frigs or 1-2 cruisers or 1 bc. Fly like players, boost properly, rely on cap boosters?
Meaning if you cant break his tank, you have to bleed is cap booster supply. It would actually be a **** load more fun
|
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 20:33:00 -
[13]
Supported
I totally agree with the principal idea behind making NPCs behave more like real ships. The lack of any realistic NPCs at all is imo the most immersion breaking aspect of Eve and has been ever since its inception.
In terms of how to bring that about I support the idea of making NPCs harder (using Sleeper/Incursion API) and to have them use weapon systems that correlate more closely to the player ones. Having them using drones too would be nice if it could be done. I'm less fussed about NPCs having actual modules or anything like that though, unless I missed some point in the OP that seems like an unnecessary overcomplication.
I believe CCP is making some progress in this direction, but their efforts are variously incredibly slow, or misguided.
For example it was in one of the latest dev blogs that after 8 years they have finally fixed NPC ECM so that it does in fact now work like player ECM and player ECCM now counters NPC ECM it correctly. However that's still only a job half done because afaik player ECM still does not jam NPCs properly, (last time I checked it just breaks lock and does not prevent relocking).
On the other hand the recent changes to officer spawns where they have been overbuffed to the point where they instapop most solo ratters and need a fleet to take down is imo a step too far. There is already plenty of group content in Eve and little enough solo content as it is without making even something as mundane as belt ratting an activity requiring a fleet too.
The most important change I think is firstly for more NPCs to use warp scram, and for NPCs to attempt to escape once a certain proportion of their group has been destroyed, i.e. they warp off unless they are warp scrambled (possibly to another celestial).
Unfortunately though, this is all an idea that has been raised more times than I can recall in the last 6 years and sadly although it is obviously important to the players it clearly does not feature on CCP's list of priorities.
|
Corina's Bodyguard
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 20:59:00 -
[14]
As long as the overall difficulty of missions does not change, sure.
|
zus
|
Posted - 2011.03.29 21:32:00 -
[15]
Totally agree
|
Johnny Lou
|
Posted - 2011.03.30 17:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
There is already plenty of group content in Eve and little enough solo content
I'd also like to see more solo content and solo professions...
But I doubt that will happen.
|
Quum
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 16:30:00 -
[17]
friendly bump
and totally agree 
|
Hayaishi
Gallente
Aperture Harmonics
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:01:00 -
[18]
I would only like to see this if drones will never be aggroed due to sleeper AI. People say "Defender missiles kill missiles, AI need to kill drones", and I say "Defender missiles kill missiles, not your entire missile bay". Shooting drones just makes being Gallente painful and unloved.
|
Santiak
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 20:09:00 -
[19]
Sounds like an excellent idea. :)
I don't know much about programming AI, but if it's doable to the point where you can run the same mission twice, but have to deal with ships that react in two different ways, all the better.
Say in one instance you come across a heavy gank BS with 2 jamming cruisers. Next time it's a heavy EWAR BS with 2 gank cruisers.
Just to propose a simplified example of my point.
|
Choh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 16:54:00 -
[20]
khm..
Is there any chance to see commentaries from CCP devs?
|
|
|
Jaik7
|
Posted - 2011.04.04 18:36:00 -
[21]
copy and paste this thread from here in F+D (Fail and Die) to assembly hall where a concerned CSM can shove it in CCP's face.
|
Choh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.04.16 13:28:00 -
[22]
And up again.
Any comments?
|
Isis Dea
Minmatar
Modal Cortex
IDENTITY UNKN0WN
|
Posted - 2011.04.16 20:28:00 -
[23]
OMG... cant believe I missed this one!
YES PLZ- And can we get some NPC caps in a few of them lvl4s? -With pirate skins?
*gets and grasps screenshot key*
Fully support!! -Pass on to the Jita hall?
___
DUST 514 - CCP's First Person Shooter: It needs your input! |
Unbendable McRib
|
Posted - 2011.04.18 14:38:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Johnny Lou
I'm all for changing mission NPC's and I've seen some good ideas here. Less ships to destroy with more realistic fits sounds nice as long as the rewards are somewhat the same.
So, mission bounty should remain the same (by giving higher bounty to the fewer NPC's).
As for the loot, maybe have each ship drop a faction module and only meta modules. This should make up for the decrease in volume by increasing quality. It should also give miners a purpose again.
Salvage should also increase in quantity and drop some T2 salvage as well from time to time.
Drone NPC's.. well.. they might as well remain unchanged, for now.
I Agree with that! More Experiance and Reward !
And stop that loot that nobady needs
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |