Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
547
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 17:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Prior to the Retribution update, NPC's did not switch aggression once targeted on the first player in the area. This change was for the most part good when it comes to improving the PVE experience. In particular, it added an element of randomness and unpredictability for the player fighting the NPC's. I could no longer send in one tank ship to take all the aggro, then bring in as many max-DPS ships to kill everything, or bring in a remote repair ship without having to worry about its local tank.
It also fundamentally altered another aspect of Eve, and in this regard I think the changes were less positive. It vastly increased the difficulty of solo anti-ratter operations. I'm not alone in this - for example there is this nice old thread bemoaning the change from nearly 18 months ago.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=203437
Thus far, no significant changes to NPC AI have been forthcoming. So, when I attempt to go for a kill anywhere that NPC's are involved, I immediately have to deal with the fact that I am the new "bright shiny object with electronic warfare" and deal with all the NPC's trying to kill me, in addition to the player's best efforts to kill me. Never mind that the player I am attacking is at -9.99 standing to those NPC's and three seconds before I decloaked or warped in, he was happily murdering them by the bushel.
This may not matter that much when I have a gang behind me, but for a solo player, particularly a stealth bomber or recon ship, it often spells the end to the action. Even if I have fit everything to deal with the player's ship, I still have to deal with the NPC's. Try doing that in a stealth bomber against an Ishtar or Dominix.
Since I think this is a problem, I'd like to propose a couple of potential solutions. CCP should implement one or more of these options to improve Eve.
Option 1: CCP could add pirate faction ship skins for stealth bombers, force reconnaissance, and Black Ops ships (and maybe eventually for other ships). Not only would these look awesome, they would also make the rats not hate your ship. These would, as far as I know, be the only ship skins to give an advantage to a ship that was more than cosmetic. That fact alone makes them controversial. Consequently, these skins would come from NPC drops and LP stores - rather than the NEX store. Basically it would work as follows: if I get a Guristas Manticore skin, I put it on the ship. Now, when I am inside a complex or on a gate or in a belt, Guristas NPC's will not target me unless I engage them first or unless I remote assist another player who is aggressed toward or by those NPC's. I could then use my Guristas Manticore inside of Guristas anomalies, complexes, and missions to assist my beloved NPC friends against ratters. Just like that, solo hunting in a stealth bomber or recon ship becomes a viable option again. Of course the Manticore is not the ideal choice for hunting Guristas ratters, but that is a trade-off I have to accept. Or, perhaps all pirate faction NPC's would recognize a "fellow pirate ship" come to assist them based on that skin.
Option 2: CCP could add pirate faction militia corporations - faction warfare for pirate factions. For instance, all players in the Guristas militia corporation would not be targeted by Guristas NPC's, except in self-defense. Militia members aggressing fellow militia members, Guristas NPC's, stealing resources from belts in Guristas space, or directly assisting those aggressing them would suffer vastly increased standings losses towards Guristas. Failure to maintain 8.0 faction standing (or some similarly high amount) would result in the player being kicked from the militia corporation at the next downtime and banned from the corporation for thirty days. All pirate faction militia members would be persona non grata in high security space.
Option 3: CCP could add a module that acts as a pirate ship transponder. This should probably be a high slot module, to prevent mining ships from wanting to fit it. When activated, this module prevents NPC's from targeting the player's ship. This module cannot be activated by any player with an NPC aggro timer and deactivates as soon as the player gains an NPC aggro timer. Remote repairing anyone with an NPC aggro timer automatically causes an NPC aggro timer for the assisting pilot.
Option 4: CCP could fix NPC AI so that NPC's can recognize that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least temporarily.
Any or all of these options could be implemented to improve the viability of solo anti-ratting hunting and increase risk for ratters. Personally, I think Option 1 and Option 4 are the best. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
112
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 17:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:
Option 4: CCP could fix NPC AI so that NPC's can recognize that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least temporarily.
That's the same as saying Russia and ISIS are friends because they both hate the US |

Ohkewl
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 17:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
so in short, you want risk free ratter ganking? |

Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
103
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 18:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
you really think you havent enough advantage against a pve fit ship?
|

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
547
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 18:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Ohkewl wrote:so in short, you want risk free ratter ganking?
As someone who rats in null sec, a lot, I think I know a lot more about the risks of ratting in null sec than you do. There are two sides to every coin. There is me, -9.99 to every pirate faction in whose space I have ever spent time, with the "Elite Carebear" certificate to match, and my ratter hunting character, who has never shot a single rat. Right now, the balance is way in my favor.
The risk in this situation should come primarily from the opposing player. Have you ever tried to solo an Ishtar - the dominant ratting ship across Eve - in a stealth bomber? With the right fit and skills and no rat interference, it is still a tall order. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
547
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 18:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:
Option 4: CCP could fix NPC AI so that NPC's can recognize that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least temporarily.
That's the same as saying Russia and ISIS are friends because they both hate the US
Without getting into the politics of the situation in your example (Russia and ISIS are actually enemies because Russia is allied with Assad), in both Eve and the real world, there are all sorts of temporary alliances of convenience. I have been in fleets where we cooperated with Black Legion or Pandemic Legion to kill someone we mutually disliked, only to then GTFO as quickly as possible because I knew that as soon as the other threat was dead, I would look like a tasty morsel to the BL or PL fleet. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2014.09.28 19:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Ohkewl wrote:so in short, you want risk free ratter ganking? The risk in this situation should come primarily from the opposing player. Have you ever tried to solo an Ishtar - the dominant ratting ship across Eve - in a stealth bomber? With the right fit and skills and no rat interference, it is still a tall order. this just means that a bomber its not the right tool to fight an ishtar, because you have an hammer you ask that the whole world be remade into nails basically. just switch to a more apt tools for the specific need. |

Lugh Crow-Slave
Guardians of the Morrigan
85
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 10:51:00 -
[8] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:
The risk in this situation should come primarily from the opposing player. Have you ever tried to solo an Ishtar - the dominant ratting ship across Eve - in a stealth bomber? With the right fit and skills and no rat interference, it is still a tall order. ?
Have you tried using a different ship? |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
554
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:38:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sure, I've tried using different ships. What truly solo ship do you recommend for roaming deep in solo space to successfully catch and kill ratters? Not "solo" with neutral scout and off-grid booster, but really solo. A good T3 could do it now, but prior to the NPC aggro change, you could use a stealth bomber or recon ship. I'd just like to see those days return. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Gh0stBust3rs
Wraith Shadow Guards
55
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:45:00 -
[10] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Sure, I've tried using different ships. What truly solo ship do you recommend for roaming deep in solo space to successfully catch and kill ratters? Not "solo" with neutral scout and off-grid booster, but really solo. A good T3 could do it now, but prior to the NPC aggro change, you could use a stealth bomber or recon ship. I'd just like to see those days return.
Try a Stratios. Change your Drone loadout to an off damage for the region your in Tank to the region your hunting in.(Free tip the damage the rats do is the same as the guy shooting the rats)
So if your hunting in Guristas space tank for kinetic and do EM damage. Harvest tears.
A solo bomber should not be able to tackle hold and kill something anyways. It is designed as a group weapon system. Either with Bombing Runs or Torping down a larger target.
Then again Solo Ceptors (or packs of 2-3) have been able to **** Afktars for a while now. Try finding a different tool. |
|

Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5328
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:48:00 -
[11] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote: solo an Ishtar - in a stealth bomber
...and you're think the npcs are the issue.
that's not what bombers are for. you want an assault frigate(assuming you want to frigate) with high resists,small sig and good great tracking and possibly drones of its own for killing ishthars solo. =]I[= |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
555
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
I'll check out the Stratios, but I still think there should be a way to avoid rat aggro while attacking ratters.
I used to love the Pilgrim for this purpose, but it is toast with the current mechanics. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1263
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field? |

Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5332
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field? They put pressure on the targets tank , making it much easier to break than otherwise.
I hear good things about the proteus op, maby look at a cloaked blaster gank boat... =]I[= |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
555
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:00:00 -
[15] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field?
In my experience, most people don't rat for very long with a neutral or hostile in local. If you are hunting solo, you often have to take the ratter as you find him. Most people POS up as soon as you enter local. Those who don't are totally AFK or very reckless. Trying to wait for the optimum rat spawn means you probably won't even get off a shot. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Alundil
Isogen 5
679
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field? Because the only ones you'll catch if you wait (in all areas not wspace) are the dumb ones or the AFK ones.
Waiting is not an option in 99% of the cases. (Thanks to Local Intel - the greatest intel tool the NSA never had).
I'm right behind you |

Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 20:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:I hear good things about the proteus op, maby look at a cloaked blaster gank boat...
They really are quite solid. Pretty easy to make a 500+ DPS cloaky proteus, with 500+ EHPS on an AAR (for 70-90 seconds), and 75k EHP before boosts. More boosts and rep if you can specifically gear for a particular damage type (Proteus have insane innate kinetic resists, pretty easy to hit ~3000 EHPS and 450k EHP against that damage type).
The only standing downside to the Proteus, and really anything other than a bomber (including a Stratios) is that nastly 5-6 second sensor recalibration delay. That's what makes bombers so amazing for ganking, even solo. They can uncloak and instantly lock and scram a target. I've caught an interceptor hacking in a data site before with a bomber. No way you can do that with a Proteus or Stratios, unless said Inty was simply afk. |

Alundil
Isogen 5
679
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 22:19:00 -
[18] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:I hear good things about the proteus op, maby look at a cloaked blaster gank boat... They really are quite solid. Pretty easy to make a 500+ DPS cloaky proteus, with 500+ EHPS on an AAR (for 70-90 seconds), and 75k EHP before boosts. More boosts and rep if you can specifically gear for a particular damage type (Proteus have insane innate kinetic resists, pretty easy to hit ~3000 EHPS and 450k EHP against that damage type). The only standing downside to the Proteus, and really anything other than a bomber (including a Stratios) is that nastly 5-6 second sensor recalibration delay. That's what makes bombers so amazing for ganking, even solo. They can uncloak and instantly lock and scram a target. I've caught an interceptor hacking in a data site before with a bomber. No way you can do that with a Proteus or Stratios, unless said Inty was simply afk. I personally like the hero tackle dual scram Helios. I call it the "Spanish Inquisition"
:)
I'm right behind you |

Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
143
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:01:00 -
[19] - Quote
Alundil wrote: I personally like the hero tackle dual scram Helios. I call it the "Spanish Inquisition"
:)
It's solid, but Covops frigates still have the 5-6 second sensor recalibration. Only bombers don't.
I did see a very nasty rocket Nemesis build that almost caught one of my scanners, however. Non-torp fit bombers and still be quite mean. |

Marc Durant
152
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:13:00 -
[20] - Quote
The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.
So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way. Yes, yes-áI am. Thanks for noticing.
|
|

Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4147
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:14:00 -
[21] - Quote
While rat aggro can be annoying, I find it questionable that the NPC aggro is the reason for your distress if you're hunting Ishtars in a solo stealth bomber.
I also don't have an issue with NPC aggro, although I'd figure the NPC's would generally prioritize heavy dps ships over warp scramblers.
|

Mag's
the united
17879
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 23:58:00 -
[22] - Quote
At this point in time, you should have learned to deal with it tbh. I think it was a good change.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
23
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 01:05:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field? They put pressure on the targets tank , making it much easier to break than otherwise. I hear good things about the proteus op, maby look at a cloaked blaster gank boat...
And hear we have the basics of the issue, he wants the rats to be able to do a lot of the damage to the target for him while he moves around totally free of any damage other than that the target may send his way. This change to the NPC AI was one of the best things that CCP ever did to balance the game between gankers and their targets. Now both ganker and target must be able to tank the damage if they want to stay around, heck they may even need to shoot rats so they can stay in the pocket. I would say this is working as intended. |

Inadequate Suppression
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 01:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
This change would make me very happy. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
751
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 08:39:00 -
[25] - Quote
yes, NPC switching targets in pvp encounters was a very bad change and should be reverted by CCP soon.
|

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:03:00 -
[26] - Quote
Marc Durant wrote:The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.
So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way. You fail to realize that this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid ******** AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code. |

Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
5339
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:11:00 -
[27] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:Marc Durant wrote:The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.
So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way. No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code. actually i remember this being the stated reason for it. you could keep agro on something the rats couldn't hit under the right circumstances. =]I[= |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 09:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:Marc Durant wrote:The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.
So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way. No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code. actually i remember this being the stated reason for it. you could keep agro on something the rats couldn't hit under the right circumstances.
Quoting from Apocrypha devblog: "One of the things we disliked about the current AI system is that the first player ship in range of a NPC squad would become the focus of the attacks for the entire squad. The squad would never deviate from that attack pattern. We have changed this as well. When an encounter starts, the NPC will individually evaluate what is known of the opponent and target the appropriate opponent. As the fight evolves, the NPC will watch what players are doing and, based on several criteria, will decide if some or all of the NPCs should change their targets. In very basic terms: modules and weapons generate threat; as the threat goes up and down the NPCs will change targets and allocate secondary targets."
You can also read this devblog. There is absolutely no reference to what you said as being intended. Like I said before, this is just a side effect.
|

Marc Durant
153
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:36:00 -
[29] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:Marc Durant wrote:The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.
So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way. No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code.
There have been an awful lot of "side effects" the past few years that, just by sheer accident, had a rather positive use for carebears. Don't kid yourself, when CCP said/says "we want more subscribers" what they forgot to add is "so we'll adapt the game to the biggest player pool; the carebears".
KatanTharkay wrote:You can also read this devblog. There is absolutely no reference to what you said as being intended. Like I said before, this is just a side effect.
Yes, they will of course openly state to their hardcore customers that they're changing focus. Marketing speak has always been 100% honest and open about a company's motivation. Yes, yes-áI am. Thanks for noticing.
|

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 14:59:00 -
[30] - Quote
Marc Durant wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:Marc Durant wrote:The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.
So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way. No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code. There have been an awful lot of "side effects" the past few years that, just by sheer accident, had a rather positive use for carebears. Don't kid yourself, when CCP said/says "we want more subscribers" what they forgot to add is "so we'll adapt the game to the biggest player pool; the carebears". KatanTharkay wrote:You can also read this devblog. There is absolutely no reference to what you said as being intended. Like I said before, this is just a side effect. Yes, they will of course openly state to their hardcore customers that they're changing focus. Marketing speak has always been 100% honest and open about a company's motivation. Ohhh, so CCP secretly helped the carebears. Sweet Jezuz! You're saying that CCP practically kept us the players in the dark but told the secret to the chosen few. Because you know that CCP did this specially to help the carebears, I guess you're one of the blessed by CCP players. God, I envy you! |
|

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
752
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:09:00 -
[31] - Quote
at least they ignored peoples feedback on the announced changes. I too, among others, voiced those exact concerns about pvp aspects of the game being severely affected - but noone listened, so it must've been intentional, or CCP make those feedback threads for troll or sheer politeness. |

Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1263
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 15:32:00 -
[32] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field? lmao I guess you never tried to roam 0.0, did you? There is no time to wait, as a neutral appears in local, most will be warping to station or POS if not even much earlier.
The OP mention uncloaking so I assume he had to hunt his target and had the time to slowboat into point range. How damn long does it take to align an Ishtar out and warp? I know some people will run instantly when they see a neut/red in local but FFS if you can uncloak on your enemy, he was definitely not of the type to insta-run. |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:16:00 -
[33] - Quote
The Sleeper AI does not distinguish between different players, it treats all players ships on grid equally. It assesses the threat for every new ship on grid and acts accordingly. If you would put a condition like:
"if player ship is aggressing NPC & another ship is shooting the aggressing ship then do not attack that ship"
that would be highly exploitable - fit a civilian gun on your logistics and never get NPC aggro. A multiple set of conditions that would basically check for "damage on ship > buffs on ship" would need constant checking and it would heavily load the servers.
So no, it's not a secret CCP plot and changing how the NPC AI behaves would mean changing the entire code and this will not happen any time soon. |

Doddy
Esoteric Operations
903
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:33:00 -
[34] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:
Option 4: CCP could fix NPC AI so that NPC's can recognize that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least temporarily.
That's the same as saying Russia and ISIS are friends because they both hate the US
Well that makes more sense than how it is now. ISIS being attacked by the US, then Russians come along and attack the US so ISIS immediately stops attacking the US and attacks the Russians instead.....
|

Doddy
Esoteric Operations
903
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 16:45:00 -
[35] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:The Sleeper AI does not distinguish between different players, it treats all players ships on grid equally. It assesses the threat for every new ship on grid and acts accordingly. If you would put a condition like:
"if player ship is aggressing NPC & another ship is shooting the aggressing ship then do not attack that ship"
that would be highly exploitable - fit a civilian gun on your logistics and never get NPC aggro. A multiple set of conditions that would basically check for "outgoing damage on ship > outgoing buffs on ship" would need constant loop checking and it would heavily load the servers.
So this is not a secret CCP plot to help carebears and changing how the NPC AI behaves would mean changing the entire code and this will not happen any time soon.
LOL
The sleeper AI sees ewar as a threat. The pvper must use a disruptor, the ratter uses no ewar (well usually, i guess npcers using tps may be at a disadvantage). This means the NPCs will always see the pvper as a threat over the ratter, despite the fact the warp disruption provides no actual threat to the npcs. I have never ever attacked a ratter and not had the npcs switch. Even when you can avoid their damage their ewar will ruin the fight most times, getting in a jam or neuting a point off so the ratter can bail.
If it wasn't a stealth CCP plot they would simply have excluded warp disruption from the threat matrix and/or toned down the new threat switch (which is dumb in any case).
I suspect some ccp dev got his navypoc killed by a hound one day and threw a hissy fit. |

KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 17:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
Doddy wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:The Sleeper AI does not distinguish between different players, it treats all players ships on grid equally. It assesses the threat for every new ship on grid and acts accordingly. If you would put a condition like:
"if player ship is aggressing NPC & another ship is shooting the aggressing ship then do not attack that ship"
that would be highly exploitable - fit a civilian gun on your logistics and never get NPC aggro. A multiple set of conditions that would basically check for "outgoing damage on ship > outgoing buffs on ship" would need constant loop checking and it would heavily load the servers.
So this is not a secret CCP plot to help carebears and changing how the NPC AI behaves would mean changing the entire code and this will not happen any time soon. LOL The sleeper AI sees ewar as a threat. The pvper must use a disruptor, the ratter uses no ewar (well usually, i guess npcers using tps may be at a disadvantage). This means the NPCs will always see the pvper as a threat over the ratter, despite the fact the warp disruption provides no actual threat to the npcs. I have never ever attacked a ratter and not had the npcs switch. Even when you can avoid their damage their ewar will ruin the fight most times, getting in a jam or neuting a point off so the ratter can bail. If it wasn't a stealth CCP plot they would simply have excluded warp disruption from the threat matrix and/or toned down the new threat switch (which is dumb in any case). I suspect some ccp dev got his navypoc killed by a hound one day and threw a hissy fit.
Dude... For optimization reasons CCP AI checks for EW category, it doesn't check for modules individually, this requires less processing power. And EW is highest on AI check list, it makes no difference if you use a point, tracking disruptor, damps, webs or target painter, they are all treated the same. You know, for example you can jamm NPC's in burner missions... Makes sense to be the highest priority check. |

Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
145
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 19:54:00 -
[37] - Quote
It's actually a very simple fit to coding. New ships to grid start at 0 threat (they don't appear to currently), and hostile modules activated only generate threat if they are directed at an NPC target (friendly modules, like remote repairs and cap transfers, still generate threat as normal). PvP actions instantly are threat-free.
I mean, if you're going from the standpoint of what was stated in the dev blog:
"When an encounter starts, the NPC will individually evaluate what is known of the opponent and target the appropriate opponent. As the fight evolves, the NPC will watch what players are doing and, based on several criteria, will decide if some or all of the NPCs should change their targets."
If you were fighting a hostile force, and another force jumped in and started attacking your enemy, you would not immediately swap targets and start attacking the new force. It's absolute tactical lunacy. Better to let them hash it out, and then kill whichever side wins, if necessary.
Now, I could see it being the case that once your gank target dies, the pirates proactively engage you, since capsuleers tend to slaughter them en masse, but they shouldn't, from a tactical standpoint, attack you unless you make a threatening gesture at them first. Attacking their target shouldn't generate threat. |

Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1263
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:10:00 -
[38] - Quote
Daenika wrote:It's actually a very simple coding change. New ships to grid start at 0 threat (they don't appear to currently), and hostile modules activated only generate threat if they are directed at an NPC target (friendly modules, like remote repairs and cap transfers, still generate threat as normal). PvP actions instantly are threat-free.
I mean, if you're going from the standpoint of what was stated in the dev blog:
"When an encounter starts, the NPC will individually evaluate what is known of the opponent and target the appropriate opponent. As the fight evolves, the NPC will watch what players are doing and, based on several criteria, will decide if some or all of the NPCs should change their targets."
If you were fighting a hostile force, and another force jumped in and started attacking your enemy, you would not immediately swap targets and start attacking the new force. It's absolute tactical lunacy. Better to let them hash it out, and then kill whichever side wins, if necessary.
Now, I could see it being the case that once your gank target dies, the pirates proactively engage you, since capsuleers tend to slaughter them en masse, but they shouldn't, from a tactical standpoint, attack you unless you make a threatening gesture at them first. Attacking their target shouldn't generate threat.
So I should be able to sit inside of an anom since there is no threat generated?
The rats just see a target of opportunity in the form of the attacking player because he is usuaslly in a much easyer to destroy ship. They act like any capsuler would by making sure they get a KM before going down. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
753
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:15:00 -
[39] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: The OP mention uncloaking so I assume he had to hunt his target and had the time to slowboat into point range. How damn long does it take to align an Ishtar out and warp? I know some people will run instantly when they see a neut/red in local but FFS if you can uncloak on your enemy, he was definitely not of the type to insta-run.
you didnt think about the chance he hasnt seen him on local yet? Believe me, I've missed millions of kills while slowboating toward the bear cloaked as he realized me in local and warped off. This is a common situation. |

Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
146
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 20:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:So I should be able to sit inside of an anom since there is no threat generated?
No...I direct you to this part of my comment:
Daenika wrote:Now, I could see it being the case that once your gank target dies, the pirates proactively engage you, since capsuleers tend to slaughter them en masse
In other words, if you're the only target, you get shot, but if there are two targets, and one has attacked the NPCs while the other hasn't made a threatening gesture, the attacker should get aggro, especially if the one-that-hasn't-attacked is newer to the grid than the one that has.
Quote:The rats just see a target of opportunity in the form of the attacking player because he is usuaslly in a much easyer to destroy ship. They act like any capsuler would by making sure they get a KM before going down.
On the contrary. If you're trying to destroy a hostile force, and protect your own, would you attack the target that is currently attacking you, and also receiving damage from another party, or would you attack the target has it NOT receiving damage from another party and is also not attacking you?
Tactically, it's lunacy to attack the latter. The former is much easier to destroy, and more of a threat to your forces as well. |
|

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 02:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
I can understand the points made on both sides by the nul sec folks, we still seem to forget that the AI applies to all regions of space and the needs of all regions of space must be considered and balanced when changes are made. I am not saying the system is properly balanced but especially in high sec it is significantly more balanced than it used to be.
In nul you have intel channels, the whole concept of reds, blues and neutrals and let's not even go into the nearly empty systems that you rat in. High sec on the other hand is an entirely different matter there are no intel channels, there are no red, blues or neutrals there are simply players in ships. Sure some of them may have yellow flags as a suspect, or red flags as a criminal or for low sec status but there is no way to identify a potential threat in the way that you can in nul. When you combine all these factors plus the radically increased player count in an average high sec system and those high sec players face all of the same risks with none of the tools to help identify those risks.
Given all that must be considered and understanding the complaints of the nul sec crowd I say that until such time as the NPC AI is tailored to the specific region of space it is used in then this is a situation where the nul folks will just have to adapt to a system that is better tailored to the needs of the high / low sec segments of the game. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
111
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:26:00 -
[42] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:I can understand the points made on both sides by the nul sec folks, we still seem to forget that the AI applies to all regions of space and the needs of all regions of space must be considered and balanced when changes are made. I am not saying the system is properly balanced but especially in high sec it is significantly more balanced than it used to be.
In nul you have intel channels, the whole concept of reds, blues and neutrals and let's not even go into the nearly empty systems that you rat in. High sec on the other hand is an entirely different matter there are no intel channels, there are no red, blues or neutrals there are simply players in ships. Sure some of them may have yellow flags as a suspect, or red flags as a criminal or for low sec status but there is no way to identify a potential threat in the way that you can in nul. When you combine all these factors plus the radically increased player count in an average high sec system and those high sec players face all of the same risks with none of the tools to help identify those risks.
Given all that must be considered and understanding the complaints of the nul sec crowd I say that until such time as the NPC AI is tailored to the specific region of space it is used in then this is a situation where the nul folks will just have to adapt to a system that is better tailored to the needs of the high / low sec segments of the game.
This. In highsec suicide gankers don't get the option to "ally" with rats when trying to gank mission runners, incursion runners, miners, ratters, etc..... The rats are designed to shoot at anyone they see, they don't become your friend based on your standings towards them. Hence they quite properly target anyone on grid, instead of taking sides. Helping the "Sanshas, Angel Cartel, etc..." kill shiny mission runners in highsec is not something that the game is designed around. |

Daenika
MMO-Mechanics.com
146
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:34:00 -
[43] - Quote
Quote:Hence they quite properly target anyone on grid, instead of taking sides.
The problem isn't that they'll shoot anyone on grid. It's that they'll preferentially target the ganker over the dude trying to kill them. I mean, why would any sane combatant prioritize the one effectively defending them over the one trying to kill them?
My suggestion was simple: hostile ship modules only generate threat if targeted at an NPC. Currently that generate threat regardless of their target. This simple change is all that's needed.
The NPCs will still engage the ganker once the gankee dies, and will still engage him if he attacks the NPCs, but won't instantly and automatically swap to the ganker simply because scrams and webs are high-threat modules, even when used in defense of the NPCs. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
111
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 05:56:00 -
[44] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:Hence they quite properly target anyone on grid, instead of taking sides. The problem isn't that they'll shoot anyone on grid. It's that they'll preferentially target the ganker over the dude trying to kill them. I mean, why would any sane combatant prioritize the one effectively defending them over the one trying to kill them? My suggestion was simple: hostile ship modules only generate threat if targeted at an NPC. Currently that generate threat regardless of their target. This simple change is all that's needed. The NPCs will still engage the ganker once the gankee dies, and will still engage him if he attacks the NPCs, but won't instantly and automatically swap to the ganker simply because scrams and webs are high-threat modules, even when used in defense of the NPCs.
Yes - exactly, you want to make it easier to suicide gank mission runners, incursion runners, etc... by having them need to tank both the rats and the gankers. In essence you want criminal suicide gankers to be ble to team up with rats to kill mission runners, etc... Thankfully the game is not designed like that. The rats don't take sides, they hate everyone....they are unthinking.....they just kill whoever is on grid. There is no pvp style team up mechanics in highsec, and that is a good thing. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
755
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 06:47:00 -
[45] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: Yes - exactly, you want to make it easier to suicide gank mission runners, incursion runners, etc... by having them need to tank both the rats and the gankers.
why not? It would even make sense. Rats want incursion runner dead, so do the gankers.
|

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
494
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 07:10:00 -
[46] - Quote
Daenika wrote:Quote:Hence they quite properly target anyone on grid, instead of taking sides. The problem isn't that they'll shoot anyone on grid. It's that they'll preferentially target the ganker over the dude trying to kill them. I mean, why would any sane combatant prioritize the one effectively defending them over the one trying to kill them? My suggestion was simple: hostile ship modules only generate threat if targeted at an NPC. Currently that generate threat regardless of their target. This simple change is all that's needed. The NPCs will still engage the ganker once the gankee dies, and will still engage him if he attacks the NPCs, but won't instantly and automatically swap to the ganker simply because scrams and webs are high-threat modules, even when used in defense of the NPCs.
Issue is iirc beside killing off certain dual box pve farm setups of choice (aff drone domi among them) was the intent to not have the pve'er at such a disadvantage. Non-shifting full rat aggro was a common, and somewhat legit gripe was some pve'ers would like to fight back....but when getting slammed by a triple pope and a player (or players) there was really no point.
Old scheme picking off a pve'er not the hardest of tasks....even if they wanted to fight back. Full rat aggro, mix in attacker(s) who if weapons allowed have the ammo keyed for the resists the ratter did not spec for...and if they failed to gtfo the story wrote itself, a murder story. This how on some roams we killed stuff outside our league. Ratter got greedy, did not gtfo, we landed and high grade kill with cheesy ships. Rats helped a lot on the kill.
Rat aggro shifts have it so the pve'er not as much up against the wall as before. If they want to fight, they have decent odds that say a 1-2 of that triple pope spawn they are on might go for their new friend who stopped by.
This imo a case where the fluff needs to put aside. In the interest of fair play. We had the old ways...and they didn't work out too well. Least it seems with the new way more pve'ers hang around to be targets. Better to have targets that may need more tank on your part than to have them rush off to safe pos as gtfo the only viable option and then you get no target at all. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
755
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 09:23:00 -
[47] - Quote
whatever way you spin it, rats protecting the ratter is a dumb mechanic. Rats helping killing the ratter was actually the reason why you could kill them with a "cheesy ship" at all without bringing a gang with you or a roaming battleship/BC (lmao).
Its how I put it before in this thread, ratters enjoy this mechanic a lot because it obviously makes 0.0 a safer place for ratters since you need to bring a heavy, easy to catch/blob ship into lions hole (0.0).
Furthermore it is encouraging afk cloaky cyno play and gangs of blops in ratter systems instead of chill solo stealth bomber/recon roams. |

Maya Xadi
Deep Space Recreational Resort
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 09:46:00 -
[48] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:whatever way you spin it, rats protecting the ratter is a dumb mechanic.
Lol. They are not protecting ratters, they just want to kill both instead.  |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
755
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 09:49:00 -
[49] - Quote
Maya Xadi wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:whatever way you spin it, rats protecting the ratter is a dumb mechanic. Lol. They are not protecting ratters, they just want to kill both instead. 
Ganker warps in, puts a point on the bear, rats go berserk on the ganker. I would say they effectively ARE protecting the ratter. |

Maya Xadi
Deep Space Recreational Resort
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 09:57:00 -
[50] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Maya Xadi wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:whatever way you spin it, rats protecting the ratter is a dumb mechanic. Lol. They are not protecting ratters, they just want to kill both instead.  Ganker warps in, puts a point on the bear, rats go berserk on the ganker. I would say they effectively ARE protecting the ratter.
Well, it's quite common thing to kill weak ships first. |
|

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
755
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 10:12:00 -
[51] - Quote
Maya Xadi wrote: Well, it's quite common thing to kill weak ships first.
from the gameplay perspective, rats are protecting the ratter. you may invent some silly reason why rats would want to kill a weaker ship which is not threatening them at all but it still is what it is. |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
556
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:18:00 -
[52] - Quote
Obviously, I completely agree that rats helping ratters is a stupid mechanic, which option do you think is the best way to fix it? I am going to assume that CCP have "reasons" not to give us better NPC AI. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 13:24:00 -
[53] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Obviously, I completely agree that rats helping ratters is a stupid mechanic, which option do you think is the best way to fix it? I am going to assume that CCP have "reasons" not to give us better NPC AI.
maybe rats shouldn't engage players who apply ewar to someone with aggro to the NPC just for that? Take assisting actions into equation somehow, for example a rule like "engage players who assist player with NPC aggro" (by remote reps, shield transfer, cap transfer etc.). |

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 14:55:00 -
[54] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Maya Xadi wrote: Well, it's quite common thing to kill weak ships first.
you might invent some silly reasoning why rats would want to kill a weaker ship which is not threatening them at all and even helping, but it is still a terrible mechanic which basically gets the rats to protect the ratter from other players engaging him in sites.
Ah here we have the common misconception about rats and who and why they shoot at players. News flash dude rats shoot you because you are in their space not because you are attacking them. Here is some proof for that. Why do rats attack miners in a belt? Yes I know the miner is stealing their resources so I ask where are the rat miners? If you warp into an area in a shuttle a ship that has no weapons of any kind why do the rats attack you? If you warp into a mission pocket but do not target or shoot anything why do the rats attack? The same holds true for virtually every other PvE activity where rats are involved, you warp in you get attacked no matter what type of ship, or what you are or are not doing.
Rats are an equal opportunity killer, they will attack anything that is in their space and it has always been this way. The only thing the changes to the AI did was give the rats a little bit of a brain, instead of shooting the first thing in their space they now assess EVERYTHING in their space and adjust targets accordingly. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:01:00 -
[55] - Quote
question is not why they attack a solo player but why they switch target resulting in such a stupid behavior as when rats basically start protecting the ratter.
You cant explain it by roleplay, you cant it by gameplay perspective either this mechanic does make sense from neither position.
By pretending all players are equal for rats you just confirm how dumb the current implementation of rat aggro really is. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
111
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
Of course it's "dumb" - why would rats automatically attack capsuleers with positive standings towards them? If anything, they should be working together as allies! But that's the design of rats, they don't distinguish between friend and foe...they just shoot everything....they don't care who is "helping" or "hurting" them, because they are just mindless killers. For them to care about who is shooting them or not means they need to care about a whole lot of other things, like relative standings towards them, etc.... and CCP isn't really looking to create fw style alliance mechanics with belt and mission rats. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:18:00 -
[57] - Quote
well then CCP should change it, because pre-Retribution the AI wasnt that dumb and didnt spoil ratter kills so much - this is the whole subject of this topic. If everyone is equal, as you say, and NPC dumb as you say, they could as well stay on target they were already shooting all time. |

Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1273
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:40:00 -
[58] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:well then CCP should change it, because pre-Retribution the AI wasnt that dumb and didnt spoil ratter kills so much - this is the whole subject of this topic. If everyone is equal, as you say, and NPC dumb as you say, they could as well stay on target they were already shooting all time.
It's not that it was not dumb, it was only never changing target at all no matter the situation. Now the rats check what is on field and choose a target based on that. A stealth bomber is an easy kill so they go for it when there is one on grid. Why would they keep shooting at a target which has been succesfull in tanking all their damage for what probably amount to a few minutes without breaking? Might as well try to kill the new guy who just arrived, maybe they will finally destroy something. You want them to continue doing something that didn't work for a few minutes in the hope that a capsuler might help them when the vast majority of capsulers prefer to kill them. I wonder how "dumb" this is... |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:52:00 -
[59] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: It's not that it was not dumb, it was only never changing target at all no matter the situation. Now the rats check what is on field and choose a target based on that.
wait a second.. so suddenly they arent dumb anymore as others were telling the whole thread long?
Frostys Virpio wrote: A stealth bomber is an easy kill so they go for it when there is one on grid. Why would they keep shooting at a target which has been succesfull in tanking all their damage for what probably amount to a few minutes without breaking?
why would they try to kill a new guy, who might be helping them to break the battleship who slaughtered them for hours?
Frostys Virpio wrote:Might as well try to kill the new guy who just arrived, maybe they will finally destroy something. You want them to continue doing something that didn't work for a few minutes in the hope that a capsuler might help them when the vast majority of capsulers prefer to kill them. I wonder how "dumb" this is... I too rush to break something unrelated after failing on my true goal. very smart indeed.
btw. this isnt primarily about the lore but rather about the gameplay mechanics. Rats spoiling player kills arent right and bring too much safety into 0.0. |

Steppa Musana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
177
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:53:00 -
[60] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Robert Caldera wrote:well then CCP should change it, because pre-Retribution the AI wasnt that dumb and didnt spoil ratter kills so much - this is the whole subject of this topic. If everyone is equal, as you say, and NPC dumb as you say, they could as well stay on target they were already shooting all time. It's not that it was not dumb, it was only never changing target at all no matter the situation. Now the rats check what is on field and choose a target based on that. A stealth bomber is an easy kill so they go for it when there is one on grid. Why would they keep shooting at a target which has been succesfull in tanking all their damage for what probably amount to a few minutes without breaking? Might as well try to kill the new guy who just arrived, maybe they will finally destroy something. You want them to continue doing something that didn't work for a few minutes in the hope that a capsuler might help them when the vast majority of capsulers prefer to kill them. I wonder how "dumb" this is... The NPCs are not looking for killmails. The missions are tasked based, there is a storyline and a lore around it.
When an aggressor warps in and attacks the enemy of the NPC - the PVE player -, there is little logical reason for them to stop shooting the PVE player who is fighting against their objective, and to start shooting a new arrival who is in turn helping them defend themselves.
From a purely logical standpoint, NPCs should not be attacking the person who comes in to kill the ratter. Quite the opposite, they should be recruiting him.
With that said, an argument can be made that game balance is better achieved by having rats attack the PVPer, thereby promoting players to feel a bit safer to PVE which ultimately leads to more content on a non-solo scale. It's not an argument I'd agree with, but it is one I guess. |
|

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 15:57:00 -
[61] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote: With that said, an argument can be made that game balance is better achieved by having rats attack the PVPer, thereby promoting players to feel a bit safer to PVE which ultimately leads to more content on a non-solo scale. It's not an argument I'd agree with, but it is one I guess.
well, you're right. its a content on non-solo scale but for gangs of blops, who's planting afk-cloaking fishing cynos everywhere. Your pick whether you wish a solo roaming bomber or a cyno ship roaming or even afking in your local forever.
Since it got too hard to break a ratter solo due to silly rat aggro mechanics, cyno play and hotdrops are promoted a lot more than anything else, which sucks for both sides. I enjoy a solo roaming more than jumping 25 Blops on a raven, on ratters part dealing with a single bomber is for sure more promising than dealing with 25 blops or even 25 bridged bombers. |

Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
111
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:07:00 -
[62] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: It's not that it was not dumb, it was only never changing target at all no matter the situation. Now the rats check what is on field and choose a target based on that.
wait a second.. so suddenly they arent dumb anymore as others were telling the whole thread long? Frostys Virpio wrote: A stealth bomber is an easy kill so they go for it when there is one on grid. Why would they keep shooting at a target which has been succesfull in tanking all their damage for what probably amount to a few minutes without breaking?
why would they try to kill a new guy, who might be helping them to break the battleship who slaughtered them for hours? Frostys Virpio wrote:Might as well try to kill the new guy who just arrived, maybe they will finally destroy something. You want them to continue doing something that didn't work for a few minutes in the hope that a capsuler might help them when the vast majority of capsulers prefer to kill them. I wonder how "dumb" this is... I too rush to break something unrelated after failing on my true goal. very smart indeed. btw. this isnt primarily about the lore but rather about the gameplay mechanics. Rats spoiling player kills arent right and bring too much safety into 0.0.
They are dumb in that they don't distinguish between friend and foe. that's why your standings to them dont matter, they KOS everyone. They are not dumb to the extent that they focus on targets they can kill. They don't care if someone is there to "help" or "hurt" them, they just pick the easiest or most dangerous target or whatever. There is no reason to make it easier to suicide gank people running missions...."allying" with the rats is not a mechanic the game is designed around....to do it and keep balance you would need to buff CONCORD response times...and I'm sure that would get a whole lot of love. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:12:00 -
[63] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: They are dumb in that they don't distinguish between friend and foe. that's why your standings to them dont matter, they KOS everyone. They are not dumb to the extent that they focus on targets they can kill. They don't care if someone is there to "help" or "hurt" them, they just pick the easiest or most dangerous target or whatever. There is no reason to make it easier to suicide gank people running missions...."allying" with the rats is not a mechanic the game is designed around....to do it and keep balance you would need to buff CONCORD response times...and I'm sure that would get a whole lot of love.
ah ok, so in other words, they are just dumb enough to support your reasoning in matter but not too dumb that this whole lore argument would get nuked. GOT IT ;)
Like I said, its not about the lore but rather gameplay reasons. Having rats protecting the ratter makes ratting backwaters too secure from intruders (aside of cyno drops ofc). |

Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1273
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:44:00 -
[64] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: They are dumb in that they don't distinguish between friend and foe. that's why your standings to them dont matter, they KOS everyone. They are not dumb to the extent that they focus on targets they can kill. They don't care if someone is there to "help" or "hurt" them, they just pick the easiest or most dangerous target or whatever. There is no reason to make it easier to suicide gank people running missions...."allying" with the rats is not a mechanic the game is designed around....to do it and keep balance you would need to buff CONCORD response times...and I'm sure that would get a whole lot of love.
ah ok, so in other words, they are just dumb enough as it fits your reasoning in matter, but not too dumb that this whole lore argument would get nuked apart. GOT IT ;) Btw. you are throwing multiple different things together. Concord, missions.. ?? Suicide gankers dont care about rats, they shoot and get concordoccened they dont give a **** about rats. For the allying part, right now, the rats DO SIDE with ratter when a 2nd person appears in site and starts attacking the ratter. But like I said before, its not primarily about the lore but rather gameplay reasons. Having rats protecting the ratter makes ratting backwaters too secure from intruders (aside of cyno drops ofc).
They don't protect him, they re-asses the situation and decide they might as well kill the frig before they most likely all die. |

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
758
|
Posted - 2014.10.01 16:53:00 -
[65] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: They don't protect him, they re-asses the situation and decide they might as well kill the frig before they most likely all die.
I thought we were already done with this. 1) It doesnt make sense even in lore 2) this thread is not about lore. |

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
23
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 01:13:00 -
[66] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: They don't protect him, they re-asses the situation and decide they might as well kill the frig before they most likely all die.
I thought we were already done with this. 1) It doesnt make sense even in lore 2) this thread is not about lore.
You want it to go back to the unbalanced way it was before because that was easy and it is what you are used to. You want to warp into an area filled with rats that hate everything and shoot everything, and yet you want them to leave you alone. Etc. Etc. Etc. And you want this simply because it makes your gank attempts easier since you can ignore the rats. NO way in ....... The system was broken before, CCP took a step towards balance and now you cry rivers of tears because of it. So follow the comments you gankers pile onto those you gank, adapt or get the hell out of the game. |

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
495
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 01:40:00 -
[67] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:Maya Xadi wrote: Well, it's quite common thing to kill weak ships first.
you might invent some silly reasoning why rats would want to kill a weaker ship which is not threatening them at all and even helping, but it is still a terrible mechanic which basically gets the rats to protect the ratter from other players engaging him in sites.
it worked in wh's for years and ccp just reapplied it to rest of eve. And oddly enough we never heard wh pvp'ers complaing about it. They want the kills bad enough they adapt and do what it takes. Lesson to be learned from that.
|

Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
759
|
Posted - 2014.10.02 06:03:00 -
[68] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote: You want it to go back to the unbalanced way it was before because that was easy and it is what you are used to.
yes, I want to go back on old rat AI.
Donnachadh wrote: You want to warp into an area filled with rats that hate everything and shoot everything, and yet you want them to leave you alone. Etc. Etc. Etc. And you want this simply because it makes your gank attempts easier since you can ignore the rats.
yes. this was beetter. rats protecting the ratter ist most idiotic mechanic ever.
Donnachadh wrote: NO way in ....... The system was broken before, CCP took a step towards balance and now you cry rivers of tears because of it.
the system is now more broken than before, like I explained already.
Donnachadh wrote: So follow the comments you gankers pile onto those you gank, adapt or get the hell out of the game.
what? You mean I cant post on forums and complain about bad mechanics? You're wrong.
Zan Shiro wrote: it worked in wh's for years and ccp just reapplied it to rest of eve. And oddly enough we never heard wh pvp'ers complaing about it. They want the kills bad enough they adapt and do what it takes. Lesson to be learned from that.
oh, then, you want no local too I assume? Bebecause there is no local in WH. Or sleepers? You want sleepers in K-space? Because they are fine in WH. No? Then stop using WH as argument for anything. |

FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
559
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 18:08:00 -
[69] - Quote
I was not surprised to see this thread degenerate into arguing about the premise - whether there is a proper balance between ratters and hunters, but I was surprised to see no one express enthusiasm for some more cool ship skins, especially ones that could come from data sites (or some other neglected content) and give a minor advantage in very niche situations. This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine. |

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
504
|
Posted - 2014.10.05 22:46:00 -
[70] - Quote
Robert Caldera wrote:oh, then, you want no local too I assume? Bebecause there is no local in WH. Or sleepers? You want sleepers in K-space? Because they are fine in WH. No? Then stop using WH as argument for anything.
Yes I'd support no local. It be low sec and 0.0 that fight this....they like there instant intel it seems according to what I read in those threads.. Even have my hard to find t3 fits on stand by. For the gankers who cba to fit to tank rats,,,,well now they have the problem of cba to bring a max prober to find me fast enough, if at all.
Sleepers are a bene to wh dwellers. Lets leave that as is. You want them so bad, you know where to go. They lose the benefit of having stations to call home for example and the route they used to get around last week may not be the same this week, the sleepers one of the carrots on stick to make this bearable.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |