And lets not forget you can simply just wait for him to kill off the small things before decloaking and engaging. Or if he's saving them until last, wait until theres just a few left, decloak, point bear, kill/tank rats, kill bear.



I think you missed the part where FoxFour is simply wrong.

Use a different ship. Use a new tactic. Come up with a different fitting.

Adapting involves change. Examine the possibilities, test theories, discard ones that don't work.

Use a different ship. Use a new tactic. Come up with a different fitting.

Adapting involves change. Examine the possibilities, test theories, discard ones that don't work.

And lets not forget you can simply just wait for him to kill off the small things before decloaking and engaging. Or if he's saving them until last, wait until theres just a few left, decloak, point bear, kill/tank rats, kill bear.



I think you missed the part where FoxFour is simply wrong.

And lets not forget you can simply just wait for him to kill off the small things before decloaking and engaging. Or if he's saving them until last, wait until theres just a few left, decloak, point bear, kill/tank rats, kill bear.



I think you missed the part where FoxFour is simply wrong.

Adapt? I think you missed the part where CCP FoxFour explicitly stated soloing in a stealth bomber is dead and gone. How can you adapt that?

I would rather see it for myself then have a (new) CCP dev, who's time is most likely more occupied by working on the game then actually playing it, tell me I cannot find a way around this new targeting system (it's not even worth calling it an AI).

Time and time again we players have run into dev's who obviously had little to no real in game experience. Nucking around on test servers is not the way you get experience imho.

And even if the dev in case is right, it doesn't mean things cannot be modified after the change.


So, I would wait a bit before crying wolf.

Common sense in military doctrine dictates that in the presence of a weaker mutual enemy, you concentrate on the stronger target unless you are the focus of both. You would disregard this because now, as a matter of public record, you are incapable of common sense in combat.

I believe another point is that with the AI changes, 2 mini professions (Ninja salvaging/baiting and solo/small gang player vs ratter) get flushed down the toilet with nothing in return..

I do not support this view.

Why should NPCs ignore a juicy target... you wouldn't.
Why should NPCs continue attacking targets they cannot take down... you wouldn't.
Why should NPCs help you kill something you would benefit from... you wouldn't

Not to mention, there is already an in-game precedent for this as WH hunters have to deal with this already. Maybe you just need to expand your horizons and raise the challenge bar a bit?

Besides, what after you made your kill? Do they continue to ignore you? Help you loot? It is good and immersive to have smarter AI all around that treats everyone equally. Keeps everyone on their toes.

I do not support this view.

Why should NPCs ignore a juicy target... you wouldn't.
Why should NPCs continue attacking targets they cannot take down... you wouldn't.
Why should NPCs help you kill something you would benefit from... you wouldn't

Not to mention, there is already an in-game precedent for this as WH hunters have to deal with this already. Maybe you just need to expand your horizons and raise the challenge bar a bit?

Besides, what after you made your kill? Do they continue to ignore you? Help you loot? It is good and immersive to have smarter AI all around that treats everyone equally. Keeps everyone on their toes.

1-3 bil isk Faction fit pve ship are a juicier target than a 50 mil stealth.

Wormholes don't have local as a instant intel channel, removing local from non w-space would be fine. Actually I'd very much love to see all local channels in eve function like wormhole local.

This change basically kills low sp pvp, which hurts new players most of all(you know that thing a mmo needs to stay alive)

In the presence of a weaker mutual enemy....

Concentrate on the stronger target.

Your statement is totally out of synch there. A stronger mutual enemy?


From a story perspective, there is no reason that the Sansha should have a preference. For all they know you have shot as many of "them" as you have shot the other capsuleer.

If their frigates see a valid and "Easy" frigate target, they should shoot it. If I was in a 2 way PVP fight and a 3rd neutral frigate warped in, I would engage it. Webs, Neuts, Scrams and kill it. Because I don't know who the **** it is or what he's doing, or for whom he is scouting or tackling.

Manufacturing bad judgement to prove your case doesn't mean you're right.

How does this kill low-sp PVP?

Instead of bombers, use Assault Frigates, or Recon Cruisers... Or... Or..

How does this kill low-sp PVP?

Instead of bombers, use Assault Frigates, or Recon Cruisers... Or... Or..

The old adaptation fallacy. Just because you can adapt to a change doesn't make it a good change.

How exactly is making pve easier and good change?

A good change would be either making new content with new AI and slowly phasing out the old content, or redesigning the old content to fit with the new NPC behavior, both ways could minimize unintended consequences like the negative effect on pvp). Jury rigging new AI onto old content is the worst thing ccp could do, yet that looks like what they are planning to do.

It's just crazy.

How does this kill low-sp PVP?

Instead of bombers, use Assault Frigates, or Recon Cruisers... Or... Or..

Yeah, like when grayscale ruined nullsec anomalies, we sure found a good way to work around that.

What will happen is this will hit TQ, a fuss will ensue, all the people who thought this was such a great idea will make it a point to NOT come back and post that they were wrong about it

The fallacy is your straw man here.

I didn't say it was a good change because you could adapt to it. I said it is a good change. And I said that one can adapt to it.

Now wait, you claim there will be unintended consequences - implying bad ones presumably - and you also claim PvE will get easier. So the worst that can happen is that something will get too easy? Or are you conceding that some content is going to get harder?

If the former, I'm not sure all the PvE content consumers here will agree with you. And if it's the latter, well, then your whole point about PvE getting easier is moot.

So what you're saying is, when faced with certain death, you would immediately switch to the new, objectively weaker target if one appeared, and help the enemy who is about to finish you off kill the new challenger? You would not instead take your chances with the third party, and work together with him at least until your current threat is eliminated, even if you know that third party is hostile to you? Am I reading that right?

Reminds me of that time CCP removed CONCORD insurance, and then ganking completely stopped literally overnight. Like not a single barge/hauler died ever since the downtime for that patch ended.

Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter? And then another pod-pilot in a small ship thinks he can take on that nigh-invicible ratter? Clearly the small ship is the superior force that needs to be eliminated rapidly. He's not objectively weaker, he's a glass cannon - only a threat for as long as he's allowed to exist on the field. Most small gang FC's call them primary in the absence of any communicated desire to work together.

Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter? And then another pod-pilot in a small ship thinks he can take on that nigh-invicible ratter? Clearly the small ship is the superior force that needs to be eliminated rapidly. He's not objectively weaker, he's a glass cannon - only a threat for as long as he's allowed to exist on the field. Most small gang FC's call them primary in the absence of any communicated desire to work together.