These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Rat aggression swaps in pvp situations.

First post
Author
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#321 - 2015-07-02 17:03:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.

its how this game works, you usually catch and "fight" who doesnt want it, because a fight without a mountain of advantage over your victim is untypical for eve, its not only about ganking ratters. This is how eve works and always worked, but a mission runner ofc couldnt know that.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

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.

they dont? Risk vs. reward is a common equation in this game and PvPer are part of risk. Why do you think its different.
CCP removed a chunk of risk but left rewards untouched. This is why I question their reasoning behind the change and more of safety - imo it wasnt required.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

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.

never disputed the fact that they still die. But they die less, concludent from less pvp as I pointed out in my prev. post. Thats all about - if its less, pvp got removed from a PvP oriented game.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.

PvP was always a more risky thing than undocking and farming anomaly. What required this drastic shift toward even more risk for PvPer (or removed content, depends whether you wanted to "adapt" to broken NPC) in the favor of the ratter? I cant see any.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

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.

not more hunters explode, many gave up. Less ships explode in total.

[quotwerwere=Mike Voidstar]
I will leave the topic when it sinks to the bottom of the forums where it belongs.[/quote]

go back to motsu
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#322 - 2015-07-02 17:21:36 UTC
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?

I am going to assume you meant not less hunters (you said ratters, which was not at issue) explode, they gave up, and less ships total exploding. Again, you will need to cite something more concrete than your anecdotal hysteria.



Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#323 - 2015-07-02 17:34:55 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

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


well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later.

Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree?



I disagree. You getting pwnt in your risk averse garbage.... errrr garmur by an npc belt rat isn't a bad consequence - it's F****** funny. It's just slightly less funny than this drawn out thread. If you weren't so funny this thread would have ended on page 1.


Orthrus is way way more op then the garmur, which is quite **** tbh.



LOL that's my goto ship right now. I prefer the sleipnir, but for dual boxing random wh stuff the orthrus is awesome. Throw an XL ASB on it and go go go.
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#324 - 2015-07-02 17:53:15 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

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


well, the last thing which comes in mind were industry teams which were all but product of a cat walking over dev keyboard - eventually CCP realized how bad the idea was and kicked teams out again. Another thing is Dominion sov, which took CCP years to rethink - same could happen to fozzysov too; also there are million of balance tweaks and patches changing existing game mechanics which - all stuff being deliberately put into lines of code at some prior point but turned out wrong later.

Just saying, lot of stuff going live in games (not tested well for example) emerges bad consequences for the gameplay and becomes subject to change at a later stage, would you disagree?



I disagree. You getting pwnt in your risk averse garbage.... errrr garmur by an npc belt rat isn't a bad consequence - it's F****** funny. It's just slightly less funny than this drawn out thread. If you weren't so funny this thread would have ended on page 1.


Orthrus is way way more op then the garmur, which is quite **** tbh.



LOL that's my goto ship right now. I prefer the sleipnir, but for dual boxing random wh stuff the orthrus is awesome. Throw an XL ASB on it and go go go.


So why do you fly the most op ship in the game and hate on the garmur every single time. Orthrus is way more risk averse.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#325 - 2015-07-02 18:01:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.

what are you talking about?
If I catch a buzzard with a sabre it isnt a fight. If I find a ratting carrier and drop with 30 friends on it, it isnt a fight. This is how it works and why people play it, if I want a proper 1 vs. 1 fight I play some FPS game, mkay??

Mike Voidstar wrote:

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

I dont advocate it, it is the prevalent eve style, how could you miss THAT, even as mission runner for 6 years of playing, holy batman.

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

losing is never fun, regardless who, where or why!!! Whats you point?

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

they "changed" it? May I ask in what direction? They certainly didnt increase it, thus they reduced it, completely correct! Question is now, why. There was no reason I am aware of. More safety for ISK farmers is really last thing we needed.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

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.

I cant prove it because there is no way to query killboards properly for this type of kills,
I can only deduce it from logics, my experience and hear&say.

Raised requirements for taking down a target in anomaly solo -> heavier gear
heavier gear means easier to catch by hostiles -> more risk
heavier gear also means -> more expensive
more expensive means more incentive for hostiles to camp & bait -> even more risk
heavier gear also means -> less chance to catch prey because slower
Since there are always players not willing or not able to overcome a higher barrier/hurdle for their playstyle we can safely assume that the only result from "less chance of success" + "more risk and cost" must be "less pvp".
All right? I dont think you will be able to argue one of these points.
From my experience tons of people have fallen under said barrier, for whom content was removed from the game,
including me - simply because I'm not willing to feed expensive kills to my enemy with nearly 100% certainty.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#326 - 2015-07-02 18:02:13 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:

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.

like I said, a real proof would be kill statistics, which is however not possible with killboards, we got.


Mike Voidstar wrote:

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?

what?? This is a blatant lie.
Skill, which skill is required exactly?
Cost, not at all. You can start farming with a poorly fitted Battleship, since there are small anomalies worth doing.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

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

again, I cant query killboards so no scientific proof possible for me, but I struggle to find good solo kills compared to pre-Retribution when there were plenty of.


W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2015-07-02 18:11:12 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:

what?? This is a blatant lie.
Skill, which skill is required exactly?
Cost, not at all. You can start farming with a poorly fitted Battleship, since there are small anomalies worth doing.




You can do them in t1 fitted cruisers or frigates, there is no entry requirement.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#328 - 2015-07-02 18:36:31 UTC
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.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#329 - 2015-07-02 18:44:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.


a little pvp requires multiple amount of skill from what farming a repetitive plex or anomaly can ever get.
Moreover, you dont need a lot of ISK to get into pve, not at all. You can start farming small anomalies, even bigger ones can be done with ishtar or VNI, which is really an entry level drone boat.
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2015-07-02 18:55:46 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.


Its not limited to them, its all around ********, be it clone soldiers that cant be kited or besieged sites that isntapop frigates.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#331 - 2015-07-02 19:08:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Donnachadh
Mark Hadden wrote:
you still failed to provide any argument why making PvE safer would make sense from CCPs perspective,
apart of "because they put it there", which is obviously a fallacy as I explained above.

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.

Can you complain about this, please be my guest I am having a lot of fun tilting at windmills.
In fact I find the lyrics to this Gordon Lightfoot song and the words from the Cervantes novel coming to mind every time I read this topic. The story in the song and the book could be told about both sides.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJB0nCv0qxk
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#332 - 2015-07-02 19:11:02 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:
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.


a little pvp requires multiple amount of skill from what farming a repetitive plex or anomaly can ever get.
Moreover, you dont need a lot of ISK to get into pve, not at all. You can start farming small anomalies, even bigger ones can be done with ishtar or VNI, which is really an entry level drone boat.


While technically accurate, using lighter hulls on heavier content requires a much larger investment of training than just sitting in the hull.

You can get into PvP with a newbie frigate and a scram too, but that does not mean you will be wildly successful at it.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#333 - 2015-07-02 19:27:54 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

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.



you might be onto something that they did it for money.
But in case their strategy to attract ratters into 0.0 worked out, shouldnt they have nerfed ratting payouts somehow? Just for not screwing up eve economy by inflation completely?
Theory which I doubt anyways, because ratters were doing great even pre-Retribution. I've seen these golden times, before they nerfed anomaly upgrades, null was full of ratters, even in every NPC null in venal was a (botter) ratting raven.
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#334 - 2015-07-06 16:11:51 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:

Because you are dying to that 1 target, togetther you have a chance. And sorry but that answer alone disqualifies you in my mind from beeing taken seriously in any pvp related topic.


Confirming you are just whining that you can't get easier kills on ratters.

Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#335 - 2015-07-06 17:18:39 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:

On the other side we have no hard evidence that we can link to prove that the outcomes of this change were intended.


Sure having some offensive module (E-war) trigger hard swap while the rest does not happened by accident. The only way you can see it as not being intended is if you think there is a problem with how the code interpret in a wildly different way the application of a gun and the application of a scram for the reaction of the rats.

If it was not intended, the code sure is a huge mess even after being re-written to use the new AI.

Even letting aside if it was a good change or not, pretending it could be un-intended is a rather harsh evaluation of the coding capabilities of CCP...
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#336 - 2015-07-06 17:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
Bah... It was dead. On something like page 3.

But yeah, unless for some reason every single effect that isn't dps but does affect another ship is somehow lumped all into a single catagory then it's pretty clear that certain effects were picked out for special rat love.

I can say from experience that nothing I can project from my ship that actually works on rats will keep me aggro for long, nor will things like reps and remote sensor boosting or tracking enhancing. I am not convinced it's that bad from scrams either, or you would see common PvE fits with them for use on drone boats. Plenty of guys would toss their girlfriends out an airlock if it would distract the AI from the drones.

Assuming that it was done for money supports my conjecture that solo gankbears were causing more harm than good to the game as a whole. CCP has shown remarkable restraint in not making changes that would make the game appeal to a much wider audience and keeping to their niche market. MMOs learned long ago that subscriptions soar when you limit or eliminate PvP, especially the non-consensual variety. Eve will have to run for another decade or so to catch up with the profits of something like Everquest, and WOW is not even to be considered. They may have had shorter runs, but they reached much higher.
Big Cyc
Shocky Industries Ltd.
Goonswarm Federation
#337 - 2015-07-06 22:14:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Big Cyc
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#338 - 2015-07-07 13:48:12 UTC
Big Cyc wrote:
https://zkillboard.com/character/1640069201/
https://zkillboard.com/character/231585667/

Cry, Close, L2P
both sides


What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#339 - 2015-07-07 13:51:20 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Big Cyc wrote:
https://zkillboard.com/character/1640069201/
https://zkillboard.com/character/231585667/

Cry, Close, L2P
both sides


What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue.


How much is it outclassing and Ishtar or a VNI to use a Stratios?
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#340 - 2015-07-07 14:00:33 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Big Cyc wrote:
https://zkillboard.com/character/1640069201/
https://zkillboard.com/character/231585667/

Cry, Close, L2P
both sides


What has that to do with anything? Its not impossible or even hard to kill pvers, but it forces you to blob or severely outclass them (which vs pvers means brinning the same class) which is an issue.


How much is it outclassing and Ishtar or a VNI to use a Stratios?


Its a free win. A even fight vs a pvefit ishtar or vni would be a svipul/confessor or a slicer or crow.