still not a broken system
welcome to sleeper AI 'lite'

droneboat pilots are very familiar with it workings
and have adapted their gameplay to accommodate it

you too get the same choices
- Adapt
- Die

nb
the NPCS are not your "friends"
they do not like you
they want to kill you too

congratulations on making their job easy

I look forward to reviewing more of your lossmails

It's fairly self evident, as the change went through.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it, gameplay wise.

There was something wrong with being able to show up with a couple of neuts and a point in a ship that cost less than some modules and capping out your target while the NPC's did the damage.

Now you can still hunt ratters and such, but you have to bring an appropriate ship.

And no, I don't keep archives of old threads laying around. The fact that the change went through with this very aspect being discussed at exhausting length is sufficient. It's not something that slid in under the radar while they were looking at something else.

Home Field advantage is just that, and it's appropriate to have it. Why bother owning space you can't at least nominally control? Hunt all you like, just be prepared to occupy the space your target is in.

People get ganked all the time, every day. It can still be done. The difference is that now there is actual risk in doing so. If your opponent is required to field a billion isk to sit in that space, you should have to bring something at least competitive.

You now have mobile depot and can refit, cloaks are trivial to fit on anything combat worthy... You can get to where you need to go, strike and get out... you just can't do it trivially in a ship worth less than a dirty diaper.

What is so special about it that it needs to be effectively subsidized to the point that you can do it for practically free?

It was radically unbalanced before, to the detriment of the game and it's reputation for having one of the most toxic playerbases. Changes that make the game fun for everyone instead of just half are a good thing.

Nothing will change, these rants have been around forever, CCP simply won't change this because were from the other side of game. If we were carebears things would be different, but PVP must be harder and must continue to get harder because that is the desired direction of this game.

I generally just disagree with the concept that you should get a free ride from the rats for no real reason. I am of the opinion that if you wish to enter the site and receive a kill mail you should have to deal with the same environmental concerns that the pver himself is facing

Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that if they are dumb enough to be pointed then you deserve the kill. I partially agree with this however i do find it engaging game play when forced to have intimate knowledge of the PvE site i wish stalk my prey in.

Call me a masochist if you will but It adds variety to the hunt. Anyway that is my thoughts on the matter I'm sure i'll catch you on mumble sometime and perhaps we can debate a bit further.

First, you are the aggressor.
You have the initiative to pick if you will attack or not. The choice of ship was yours, the choice of fittings, even the hunting grounds so you knew the damage profile the environment would be throwing your way.

Second, You know the behavior of the environment.

Point is, it was broke. It was balanced from that broken state.

Now you don't like having to adapt and actually use tactics that put your own assets at risk.

having a hard time dredging up any kind of sympathy.

Not throw away ships,

So just grief killing bears with no stake of your own in the fight, and no realistic chance of losing the fight is what was bad for the game. If it had been corrected sooner the game would be better off now.

I have flown frigates in high dps missions, and know it can be done with Sig tanking. You can even do it up to a point while staying in point range of another ship. Of course some of those bears are packing webs, so your mileage varies.

The activity you hold as so high and holy was bad gameplay, poor game design

, and harmful to the game as a whole.

It got fixed.

You can still hunt whoever you wish, but you will have to apply a little more brain power to it than just flying under guns and using a neut and scram while NPCs do your killing for you.

It isnt protecting him though is it.

you are acting like a toddler seriously did you actually read any of my (granted long and poorly punctuated) post? If so click the edit button and try again. See if you can conjure up something well reasoned that covers what i said. I might disagree with you but ive actually explained why and rationalised it something you consistently fail to do, at least Wolf backs up his statements with half decent rationale.

What exactly is the difference from a solo pvp'er using, and what happened many times needing, the rats to help the kill from say a 10 man hit team to bring the ratter down from a human run "blob"?

You see I am seeing the NPC assistance as still being a blob. Its say 10 NPC rats (have old boy jumped in a fresh wave in a CA) being dps backup to the solo pvp'er. This to me is not solo pvp. Its blob tactics. The blob in this case was just not player controlled.

It was in no way different from a 10 man roam jumping the target.

Sounds a lot like the old system. Only difference is player interaction is damn near removed beyond tackle tackling. Put another way...it got a hell of a lot easier as it completely removed the fc herding a bunch of cats aspect player fleets can have.

Thank you for this, In your own words you show us clearly just how little you understand the situation.

Rats hate everyone and everything.
Rats are not protecting the ratter, they are protecting their space and you are violating that space by being there.
Rats are not your friends, they are your enemy because you are in their space.
Rats do not care about who or what you are shooting, you are in their space and therefore must die.
Rat hate E-War even more than they hate anything and everything else in their space.

Ganking ratters / mission runners was unbalanced before and by continuing to argue that point you only illustrate yet again how little you understand the situation.

I run missions and go out ratting a lot, the number of times that I get unwanted visitors taken as a percentage of the number of ratting session / mission I run has not changed over the years and there certainly has not been a noticeable change since CCP changed the rat aggro.

Stating something does not establish it as fact. You have a lot of self serving dreck up there, but few if any facts.

1. Changed balance, not skewed. Rest is false and unsubstantiated.
2. Unsubstantiated, and repeat of false half of one. The reiteration didn't make it any more true.
3. Unsubstantiated, and mostly pure opinion.
4 Proven false by posted kill mails.
5. Unrelated to topic. Ratter safety not an issue, ratter hunting is. Ratters still hunted, no problem detected.
6. Restate of parts of above false arguments. More iteration does not make it more true or less false.
7. False premise. Neither party protected, both aggressed based on actions.

The issue with your rant is you make a statement of opinion and insist it must be true. Any statement or point that seeks to discuss a point of view counter to your own is discarded as false- as if your opinion was undisputed fact. That's not how discussion works.

I can state that all frigates should be ground vehicles. Saying it does not make it true, and people pointing out that they fly and are treated as spaceships for a reason does not mean they are wrong.

That is your argument in a nutshell. You claim rat aggro should only affect people who are not you, as if that was as obvious as a sunrise and indisputably true.

I am not defending the new AI, except in that PvE needs to be more entertaining overall.

I am refuting your posts. You are just wrong, on almost every level that it's possible to be wrong on.

No, you may not have the game mechanics twisted so that you have even more advantage. If you want PvP so bad, go do it and quit whining when you did to your own stupidity.

You should be asking for CCP to stop centralising pvp around pve activities.

Example, remove the rat from fw complexes but the complex has an anti-warp bubble of a 100km radius and an anti-cloak radius of 50. The button activates only within 20km.

how is this thread still going? do people hunting other people really not know how to tank/plan for rats?

forum alt = best alt. you mad you can't find my home system in game? (I have yours though)

I don't have alts.

I don't farm killmails, nor post any. Nor care about killboards. At all.

Even when I lived in null and protected the miners that were my RL friends I didn't carry a scram because I don't care if people get away. It's not what I'm interested in.

The beauty of a sandbox is doing what you want within the system.

Does this mean you will now not have any respect for me? I somehow think that would have been the case if I had thousands of kills on my record.

We do know, and if we do the pver has 0 chance, at least in lowsec. But it forces us into very specific ships, if i roam around in my frigate and i see a cruiser doing and outpost i could 1v1 him, if he is bait fit or competent i lose, if he is not i win, in theory - but in reality the rats instantly switch to my frig blowing me up.

Rat aggro doesnt matter in 99% of the cases for big stuff but it matters in 100% of the cases for frigate stuff, if i catch your ratting tengu in mine you are dead, not matter if i get the whole room to shoot me in a 10/10. The rats dont matter for that, and if they shoot you instead of me that makes more sense rp/logic/gameplay wise but makes no difference.


The only things they actually does is kill of frigate and dessie piracy and allows for setups in fights where one team suddenlly has to deal with absurd damage and ewar while the other one gets a free kill (i.e if 2 pvpers fight and 1 set up inside first).

wat?

Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.

How is anything BUT that logical?

So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.

1. Yes, you can fly missions for the pirates, and if you had, and actually had some standing with them, I could see them considering you an ally. Beyond that, you're just another target.

2. Where do I get how pirates think? Maybe this wonderful thing we call "history." You shoukd readmsome actual historymsome time, rather than fictional histories based in the future. Things make alot more sense that way.

3. So it makes sense to take you in the little ship out before you become the next person to slaughter them in 545 Forlorn Hubs.

4. Switching targets made enough sense for CCP to implement it.

If you don't like it, don't hunt ratters.

Except....it was used to kill spawns. Especially officer and faction spawns. Land on ratter, they had the aggro, you killed the officer spawn (still focused on ratter) and the ratter for the pvp fun and the pve payout.

Well, at least you have more logic in that post. I suppose it was too much to ask you actually support your own opinions so it's easier to just attack mine.

You are incorrect that I know nothing of PvP. I don't like EVE's PvP. There is a difference. I also know game design, and a whole host of related subjects.

The problem is that you lack any basis for the change you want beyond your own selfish entitlement. There is absolutely no reason you should be able to kill whatever you want in a frigate

and having areas where frigates are not what you want to use is perfectly fine.

You countered nothing. You made statements that you assume are true, as if the mere utterance could change reality and make it so. You have no support for anything you say except that you want it.

I don't bother to log into killboards, and I don't die very often. It's impossible to prove a negative, except in proving a mutually exclusive positive. One thing does not mean the other in this case.

Small ships killing big ships is perfectly fine, even solo. What you don't get to have is selective help from the environment. The thing you are complaining about is wanting the rats to help you kill things. Rats are equally hostile to everyone, and you don't like that.

There is nothing wrong with environmental conditions that require specific ships, classes of ship, specialized equipment, etc... You don't get to fly in inherently dangerous and damaging space hunting people who have dealt with the danger without dealing with it yourself. That's not your enemy being protected by the environment, that's you failing to prepare. Choices and Consequences are at the very heart of EVE.

Your links don't prove anything at all. They are just you making statements based on false assumptions, and are themselves invalid for lacking a solid base to begin on.

There is a greater chance than zero of losing a ship anytime you undock, even in friendly space.

If the ship you are after is worth a great deal more than your ship,

and the chances of an engagement are anything close to even

, then they are at greater risk.

As initiative is yours you were able to calculate those odds and find them in your favor before the engagement began.

If your ship is a throw away ship, and you are hunting a real ship, then they have risked more than you. They stand to lose more, and they were always in danger of losing more even before you got there.

The only way for a ratter to win an engagement 99% of the time is to not allow an aggressor on grid. If that hostile is there to hunt you, he likely is prepared to win, and getting tackled is a death sentence. If the hostile is not there to hunt ratters, then the ratter looses only a small amount of time by evading.

There is no point in staying on grid with hostiles in the area.

Everyone in EVE should already know that to undock is to consider your ship lost until it returns. Your risk is equivalent to what you put in space.

You cannot claim you are at anything near the same risk as your target when you have less than 100 mil on the line and they have many times that

---even if you are guaranteed to explode for just the chance to make them explode. You would need a fail rate roughly equal to the number of times you need to die to make up the difference in ship cost to make that risk even---and you don't even have that now, if you bother to apply a little tactics and intelligence to your hunt. But that's not what invalidates your ideas about risk.

Your argument about risk is invalid because it assumes that ratting and other PvE professions rely on solo gankbears hunting them for balance. It does not. Ratters are hunted all the time, die all the time, and the balance of their profession has other better controls that the Devs can apply than gankbears.

he's got himself locked into a "The NPC's should be my friends because I'm killing their target" mindset

and he refuses to accept that that mindset is
A: wrong
B: stupid
C: has no basis in fact

Just saying it does not make it so. It's like math class. Show how you got there.

You have still yet to provide actual reason beyond wanting to be able to kill on the cheap for reverting this change.

Stunning argument as always.

So that would be nothing to say about your own particular children's crusade? You would rather try and attack me directly than support any of the garbage you suggested? Fair enough. I suppose that is all you had in the first place.

You can more radliy reduce incoming DPS by killing squishy targets first under the logic that a dead ship is no longer adding to the total DPS.

What it boils down to is that the rats are more properly mimicing actual player behavior, just not in your favor.
And you don't like it, which is fine. You're not required to like it. But no one has yet provided an actual reason why it shouldn't be that way.

You just keep hammering on those false assumptions.
1- ratters still hunted all the time, even by solo pilots. Content balanced and upgraded, not removed.
2- ratter professions not balanced by solo gankbears. argument has no basis in anything real.
3- AI treating all players the same. Don't do things to get agro and live longer.

Repeating the same baseless drivel does not add any more merit.

This was suggested and discarded because *effort*.

They aren't interested in PvE, just gankbearing ratters, in a specific way with no thought or adjustment to their tactics because they are super special snowflakes.

3) The AI isn't "protecting the ratter". It's evaluating potential targets and removing the one that is highest on it's OSHIT-ometer first.

And regardless of how you put it, you're assigning an intention to the NPCs that doesn't exist. They're no more protecting the ratter than you are protecting third parties you choose not to engage.

If you take actual pvp as an example, i.e you were minding your own business in a bc and out of nowhere a bs comes to kill you, so you are fighting a enemy battleship in your own bc and you are losing slowly but surely, suddenly a bomber decloaks and you see the "x has pointed enemy bs" message and suddenly huge chunks of damage appear on the bs - what do you do? Do you switch to the bomber and nuke that or do you kill the bs?

From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.

The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.

2) The ratters aren't any more safe than they were except in absolute terms because fewer people hunt them, because they refuse to adapt their hunting styles. YOU made them safer by deciding they were now too hard to kill anymore. The rats had very little to do with it.

Ratters can be caught and killed at any number of places - inside an anomoly are only one them.

The real problem is that the so-called solo ratter hunter bascially wants to do no more than fill the role of heavy tackle for the rats. You lock them down, the rats apply the bulk of the DPS, you get a kill mail.

Well, the rats have decided they do not want your help, thank you very much, and would you please **** off somewhere else.

It's generally accepted on the forums that someone suggesting a change to the current rules provide sound reasoning and justification for that change.

Currently few people accept the tiny scraps of "reasoning" you have laid out for the change being proposed. Some of them are kind enough to engage with you and try to develop the idea by examining and coming up with potential compromises. So far you have not engaged in a positive manner with anyone who has attempted this with you---instead you whine, rant and gibber nonsense in a temper tantrum that no one agrees with your selfish demands for NPC support in gankbearing.

By that standard you should have stopped arguing back around your second response on either of these threads. Clearly the players, except for you and Wolf, are ok with the mechanics as they stand. You have failed to gather the support of PvP and PvE pilots alike. Pretty much *everyone* except you two have rejected all of your arguments as the idiocy they are.

Couple of points here. First, nothing should make you immune to environmental conditions of the space you are flying in except for your fit. The playing field is level, not tilted in or out of your favor.

Second, lets not pretend it's that hard to travel around, and it's not like you are putting that much on the line anyway.

You do realize that all you've asked for is a return to the previous status quo before this one - when the hunters had all the advantages.

Right?

stuff

Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please?

I just thought a bit more about this. So.... folks are demanding that the npc PIRATES should totally FOLLOW RULES? The same folks go on to further demand the the RULE FOLLOWING PIRATES are following bad rules and the rules should be changed??


This is like the silliest thread ever.

I like how you switch to lore for " it makes no sense pirates won't help me", and then claim you are all about gameplay when it's pointed out you are wrong on the lore.

People, most certainly not you, do care about gameplay implications. The AI should not be so easily manipulated for or against anyone without some substancial effort involved.

You have failed to effort, you failed to risk, and now you fail to get rewarded. Rather than correct your choices you want the game altered so you don't have to. That's rarely received well on the forums, usually by guys just like you.

At least with PvE pilots you might have had a chance if your lore reasoning had been functional, or if you were willing to effort up some standings and face consequences from standings having meaning.

As it is, you are pretty much the crazy guy preaching on the street corner about doom.

There are several differences.
1. I'm right
2. I'm stating lore facts
3. I'm stating obvious facts
4. I'm not crying
5. I'm not a hypocryte wanting to shoot anything at will while saying an npc should follow rules I dictate
(Side note: Pirates don't like dicktate)
6. I don't fly risk averse garbage ships such as garmurs.

So we don't act / aren't the same.


TL/DR They are pirates PIE......RATS. They are correctly acting like PIRATES. (because - pirates) LOL

You would like to declare me unable to understand because you have no basis for your own stance.

Before you feel start feeling a little too tough and awesome, man up and come to wh space. I think you'll be able to recommend many many vast npc changes. You'll have WH space all fixed (risk averse friendly) in no time.

That was your argument not mine. Remember that whole self righteous claim that bears are too safe and need your npc subsidized hunting to keep the Isk faucets in check?

Personally I think you are just a sociopathic idiot without a clue of what a balanced mechanic would look like, reaching for any excuse you think will bamboozle some even bigger idiot to agree with you.

The point is from the other perspective you got your win. Stick around long enough and you will even inflict more harm than just popping his hull would have done.

I suppose the fundamental idea of fighting for resources in game vs. Just ganking for tears escapes your limited understanding.

I don't want npc mechanics changed so risk averse kiters flying garbage.... err garmurs can conduct 'pvp' with zero risk.
I want to jar some of your 'belt rats are too dangerous' tears.
I enjoy your awesomeness!

(I guess I have 3 points)

Setting all of the attempts to discredit people aside we still come back to the simple basic facts of this argument.

1. In times past rats never changed aggro.
2. For reasons we will never know CCP changed that and rats now switch aggro with a well understood hatred for E-War of all types.
From these simple "facts" that even you agree with we can deduce that this is working as intended since CCP is the group that made it this way.

Added to these facts we have the historical precedence that CCP rarely if ever roles back changes like this.

Taken as a whole these three "facts" bring us to the logical conclusion that this is not going to change back to what it was before no matter what you think.

And you know what I am good with that, I can go out and fly my pixel spaceships in reasonable comfort knowing that those who control the game have at least some understanding of game balance and how to achieve it.

And "IF" at some point in the future CCP changes the rat AI then I will adapt to it as I did the last time, or I can simply un-sub and spend my gaming time else where on the internet.

In conclusion I want to quote a rather large group of players around here.
"Adapt or get out", it is your choice. Personally I hope you can and will adapt to this new way of things and stay in the game, but if not them as my dad used to say do not let the door hit you in the back side on the way out. Oh and please contract all of your stuff to one of the groups in game dedicated to helping new players as you last act.

If they didn't want the rats to attack PvP'ers, they could of made it not such a hard aggro modifier to use E-war ya know...

I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.

How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?

For one thing, those PvE activities aren't that safe. They may not die in the easy and cheap way you would prefer, but they die all the time, even to solo hunters.

Secondly, yet again, Those activities are not balanced by the presence of gankbears in cheap ships.

Creating a need for bigger ships that require more minerals to produce is a vastly more productive balance on the economy, and provides a less frustrating situation for the PvE pilot as well.

ISK only gets destroyed when you purchase something from an NPC--- not a terribly common occurrence in the game. Mineral Value dies every time something explodes, and that helps drive the economy.

As for the heat from tackling someone in an anomaly filled with rats... it's not a death sentence with the proper preparation. Your target is doing it, and so can you. I will say it again---the real problem is that your target has no motivation to fight you for anything there. If he did, you would find your fight, but you would not like that either as he would likely be prepared to fight rather than flee.

What exactly could of been wanted by CCP beside rats swapping aggro on E-war usage when they coded hard switch of aggro on e-war usage?

This is not unintended. As long as people like you keep saying it might be unintended, I will put a value of "bullshit" on your argument because you flat out don't make sense.

It's not about it being un-tested and containing something bad, it's a hard switch which mean they had to insert different value for those modules since attacking a target with guns for example does not trigger such drastic change.

It was wanted by CCP when it was done.

Your entire hunting style depends on ratters needing to flee rather than fight. If they had a reason to stay they would be ready to fight and everyone would have more fun, unless you were a whining child that only has fun when the other guy explodes.

Your entire schtick about ratters being to safe relies upon the false notion that they require your cheap ships killing them on a regular basis to balance them. They don't.

People stopped roaming the way you want, they didn't stop roaming all together. Most people adapted and moved on with their lives. Those PvE pilots didn't stop dying, they just die in different ways.

Perhaps they die a little less often, but that's healthy for the game if its made up by hunters dying a little more often, which apparently they do judging from the sheer volume of your tears and bile.

Less ratters explode, more hunters explode, balance and health of the game is maintained. PvP experience of PvE pilots is improved by the perception of less cheap deaths. Seems all positive from here.

Catching unwilling prey and making a kill (the way you want it isn't a fight) may be how it works now. You are advocating change, and I am attempting to point you in a more productive direction for that change. That's how this whole discussion thing works, but I guess I was hoping for too much from a short bus rider like yourself.

CCP has far better controls for any and all activities than the toxic playstyle you advocate.

Any mechanic that is only fun for half or less of the games population is a poor one that needs revising.

They appear to have seen that and made appropriate revision. They changed the risk, they didn't remove it.

They still die. You can't prove they die less, you are attempting to infer that from the assumption of less pvp, which you also can't prove and merely infer because you can't adapt.

PvP may not be happening the way you want, but it's still happening. I am sure there is a link to the yearly reports of how many ships of which types die... a little work might prove your claim, but I doubt you have either the acumen or the ambition to actually formulate a real argument. If you did you would find me in complete agreement with you. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming that PvP in EVE is dying would require something monumental.

Farming Anomalies has a substantially higher bar to entry in both skill and raw cost than PvP, especially of the type you are advocating. Perhaps they felt that the situation was unbalanced and decided to balance out the investment required to enter those areas?

Again, you will need to cite something more concrete than your anecdotal hysteria.

The small ones that can be done in small ships should not also be giving you significant issues.

Bigger ones that make substantial isk require more skill, bigger ships, and are presumably what you guys are complaining about.

OK just taking a wild shot in the dark since I have no inside information about why CCP does the things they do but one rather important possibility that comes to mind is CASH. Please tell me that you know about CASH, the stuff a company needs to pay rent/mortgage, payroll, payroll taxes(if they have any in Iceland), equipment replacement and repair, electricity and the list goes on but I hope you get the point. And so there remains the possibility that CCP changed the rat AI simply to protect one of it's major sources of Cash. Remember I said I have no inside information, since there is no way for any of us to speak for CCP in this matter all we can do is speculate about something that MIGHT have been.

You look at the AI change and call foul and that it is stupid beyond belief and that it must be an unintended consequence because it makes no sense to you. However there is NO evidence that you can link to to prove your side of the debate because there is none, it is all personal opinion.

On the other side we have no hard evidence that we can link to prove that the outcomes of this change were intended. As in a court of law we do have circumstantial evidence on our side though.
The rat AI change was brought forth to the test servers and the complaints began immediately from the gankers.
CCP made so adjustments and put it back up on the test servers and the complaints continued.
And so this cycle went for awhile and then choosing to completely ignore the complaints and the whining from the gankers CCP makes this AI a thing on Tranquility.
Now fast forward more than a year and agin the complaints from some ganlers arises and puts us where we are at this moment.

Do I have evidence that proves beyond doubt that CCP intended the rat AI to work out the way it has - No I do not.
But I do have the a fore mentioned circumstantial evidence and that is a far stronger indicator of what was intended than your personal opinions.

The stupid in that statement really burns.

It also verifies that you want your "PvP" to be practically free compared to your victim. By your own statement the current state in equivalent ships should suit you just fine.

Then why cry so hard?

If you can kill in a frigate, it should be all the easier in something heavier. If you can't catch a ratter, catch his defense. Or whatever.

Every argument you have made thus far just went up in smoke

You can't have it both ways, with rats not mattering and that they be utterly destroying your game at the same time.

You have no justification. You can kill anything in a frigate already. You just said so.

Just as it's pointless to argue with Mark "give me easier ratter kills" Hadden.

You're both pointless to this discussion.

Nah, when I PvP, I prefer hunting things that can actually fight back.

Oooh, you killed some poor sap who was tanked for a specific damage, and therefore stood zero chance at all against you. Big whoop. Puts you on the same rung as highsec suicide gankers.

Confirming if it's not in the same place, same hull, with the same weapon, against the same enemy that Mark wants to cherry pick then nothing you present will be good enough. Unless you agree with him, then it's fine. If you don't agree him then you are obviously (sarcasm alert) trolling, ignorant, or stupid- no matter what.

If it's all about the hunt and not the kill, why worry about Npc damage? Right, because it's totally about the kill.

If it's about disrupting ratter income then why is disrupting ratter income not good enough? Right, because it's totally about the kill.

If it's about disrupting ratter income then why is disrupting ratter income not good enough? Right, because it's totally about the kill.

Everything comes back to cheap kills assisted by rat damage.

And it is useless to try and debate with whiners who want to be handed easy kills "because I want them".

OMG, large ship have an advantage somewhere in this speed crazed game. This is obvioulsy game breaking.

Right tool for the job, stop trying to do everything in small ship, they are not the right tool for everything.

They are pretty damn good tool but still not the right one for this one job of killing ships in anomaly.

For it to "work" and let you use small ships, it absolutely has to work FOR YOU all the time.

This is just plain stupid. The kill of course won't be free but I really don't think CCP want you to be able to just shrug off the presence of other ships on site beside your target.

Either both side of the PvP engagement has to be aware of what is included in his current environment or one side can entirely ignore it. It it start mattering for the hunter, I'm sorry but you have to have more tank than a frig or a T3D and CCP seem to want it to matter to the hunter too.

He's in a fleet, I'm in a fleet. I had just as much chance of being called primary by their FC as he did being called primary by my FC.

Oh, nevermind. My opinion on anything is invalid to you because I don't fly around in 5mil isk frigates looking to kill carriers.

the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with.

I'd list more Mark Hadden shitposts and derailing, but I ran out of quote space. It's easy to find though, just read any post you've made in this thread past page 1.

They made point trigger a hard switch to prevent all of those abuse in PvE I guess...

I agree with Mike and others about right tool for the job and if your ship is so thin that the rats in whatever site you choose can volley you off the field perhaps you should look for targets in easier sites.

Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way.

You presented arguments and reasons for these where, exactly?

All you've provided is that you think it should be different, which is zero justification for it being changed back to the way it used to be.

If you weren't so busy cherry-picking pieces of people's posts you might have noticed I have been supporting in this thread changes to make ratter hunting easier for you and others like you. This is obviously an alt of mine as I don't believe my name should affect how people see my posts however for the record I've lived in every type of space there is in eve and have done content from ratting to incursions to low-sec camps to null-sec fleets and hunting in WHs.

I do think that the PvP consequences may have been unintended but the old mechanics would now be 12 years old and as other people have said it was hilariously broken even PvE-wise

PvE-ers would be happiest with the mechanics as they are now, several people in this thread would be happy with the old system. Would removing aggro from points be a compromise you'd be able to accept?

Complaining that you canGÇÖt warp in and an tackle a ratter in a T1 frig and let the rats do the bulk of your work for you is rather whiney, IMO. I could see changing the AI so the rats put smaller ships at a higher priority in their targeting AI.