These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Brains! NOM NOM!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
FSixteen
Doomheim
#581 - 2012-09-24 19:17:35 UTC
Im gallente / sentry drone spec only. It would be perfect to get a audio warning when NPC starts targeting or attacking my drone that would sound different from my ship being targeted? Also an option where we could turn all other sounds off but drone being attacked with single "tick" in the sounds menu would be nice for droneboat users. Then this change would be OK. Thanks in advance for "drone under attack" audio warning.
Josef Djugashvilis
#582 - 2012-09-24 19:30:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
FSixteen wrote:
Im gallente / sentry drone spec only. It would be perfect to get a audio warning when NPC starts targeting or attacking my drone that would sound different from my ship being targeted? Also an option where we could turn all other sounds off but drone being attacked with single "tick" in the sounds menu would be nice for droneboat users. Then this change would be OK. Thanks in advance for "drone under attack" audio warning.


It would be better if it was some sort of visual warning.

Some of us have less than perfect hearing, way, way less than perfectSad

Although that may change tomorrow when I get my new 'ears' Smile

This is not a signature.
FSixteen
Doomheim
#583 - 2012-09-24 19:46:30 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
FSixteen wrote:
Im gallente / sentry drone spec only. It would be perfect to get a audio warning when NPC starts targeting or attacking my drone that would sound different from my ship being targeted? Also an option where we could turn all other sounds off but drone being attacked with single "tick" in the sounds menu would be nice for droneboat users. Then this change would be OK. Thanks in advance for "drone under attack" audio warning.


It would be better if it was some sort of visual warning.

Some of us have less than perfect hearing, way, way less than perfectSad

Although that may change tomorrow when I get my new 'ears' tomorrow.Smile



Sound is also needed, many people with small low res monitors have to play on multiple clients by alt tab switching windows and are not always in droneboats window. Nothing against visual warning, this is OK also in addition to sound warning.

Will this change make EVE more fun? No, just more hassle. Recalling drones, waiting for rats to reaggro something then relaunching drones does not make pve not a single bit more epic, just more annoying. What would make EVE more epic is new / fun content (like when wormholes were introduced back in the day). But if you have to make rats switch targets to drones / whatever for whatever reason, do what you have to do. We will survive.
Josef Djugashvilis
#584 - 2012-09-24 19:56:33 UTC
Oh, I think the whole 'let's ruin Gallente' stuff is a nonsense.

I have decided to renew one of my two accounts on a six month sub, (due tomorrow) rather than my normal annual sub.

If, at the end of this period, I am unhappy with the Gallente nerf, I shall only keep the one account going.

Sad really.

Never mind Save the Whale - Save the Gallente.

This is not a signature.
Konrad Kane
#585 - 2012-09-24 20:21:56 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:

If you were not firing you were not generating any threat, your drones would have been.


Sorry just to clarify this bit please. At the moment if I take an Ishtar in and wait a while I'll pull all the aggro in the room. I then launch drones. Are you saying under the new system I have to shoot the rats from the Ishtar for the whole mission to pull aggro otherwise the drones will attract all of it?
Midori Amiiko
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#586 - 2012-09-24 21:07:48 UTC
RE:Caldari favoritism

"Internally we started with just changing all of the Gallente and Guristas NPC. This allowed us to run missions for the Caldari and go up against the new AI."

Suspicions confirmed.
Smile
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#587 - 2012-09-24 21:18:35 UTC
Midori Amiiko wrote:
RE:Caldari favoritism

"Internally we started with just changing all of the Gallente and Guristas NPC. This allowed us to run missions for the Caldari and go up against the new AI."

Suspicions confirmed.
Smile





Ironically the Tengu is the most prominent ship which will be COMPLETELY unaffected by this change.
So testing with Caldari would certainly have been my first instinct too...NOT.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#588 - 2012-09-24 23:52:31 UTC
Alayna Le'line wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Thanks for setting me strait that my 74km control range is never to be used with heavies though.


That is not really true though. True Scout drone operation gives 20 km to control range, but that is for scout drones not heavies. True electronic warfare drone interfacing gives another 15 km, but that is added range for using EW drones not heavies.

So the only range for using heavies (not explicitly said like above) is the base range of 20 kms. One should only use that range for heavies otherwise its a waste. Of course with you using drone nav computers that does help make them fly longer ranges.


You obviously don't use drones, so here you go:

"EVElopedia" wrote:

Range

Drone range on sub-capital ships can be increased in various ways. The base range is 20km. Scout Drone Operation adds 5km per skill level, Electronic Warfare Drone Interfacing adds 3km per skill level for all drones, not just EWAR drones. The range can be increased with a Drone Link Augmenter, increasing it by 20km per module. Drone Rigs increase range by 15km (tech 1) or 20km (tech 2).


In other words those two skills affect all drones (including Sentry Drones) except fighters.


All true, but EW drones are really fast, so extra range for them with the speed. Scout drones are fast, so more range with them. Why CCP gave those bonuses out, since those drones were fast enough to deserve them. Heavies do not deserve extra range, with their slow speed.

Of course that is design, but no one uses it that way, you just get range, so your sentries can shoot farther, that is all its mostly used for.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Adigard
RubberDuckies
#589 - 2012-09-25 01:12:44 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Not that we can test this while the server is down, but you could atleast test it before going off on another rant. You have no idea how it's going to work yet, so you can't say it will be a disaster. My ship progression was vexor, myrm, domi then rattler, so I'm hardly indifferent to the changes, but can atleast wait until it's tested.


To be fair, it's been tested, and most of the results I've read were less than desirable in the "more work" category. I don't think I've read a single report from a single drone user who didn't notice extra work, but with no extra return on that work-load.

And really that's pretty much been the answer everyone who's performed testing has came back with... to varying degrees. Last I checked this WAS still a game, that's supposed to be enjoyable? Adding more work because you don't like a few people cheating doesn't sound very.. fun to me?

The CCP Dev's answer was "Yup, more work, but you'll cope!"
Others have found it not to be too bad, but definitely more micro-managey (that's not a word, right?)
Personally my testing isn't finished, but I can't actually DO any new testing with the server down... So what do we discuss on a discussion forum when we can't really discuss testing? I'm fairly certain this patch won't destroy drone use or anything silly, and I'm fairly certain it won't touch AFK Domi missioning (without demolishing standard drone use).

As things currently stand, the last word I heard from the CCP Dev was that it'd be down until the weekend... so... not much testing apparently can be performed anytime soon?

CCP FoxFour wrote:
Both of these groups will have to change and adapt to the new gameplay, but so long as they put a bit of effort into they can more than easily come up with a new plan that works just as well.


I guess the question remains... Why? You're adding complexity for no seemingly good reason and pretty much no stated pay-off for the players. And we get to cope. I'm not seeing the pro's here, really. Can you enlighten me what this lovely change of yours is going to do for us in the immediate future? Not the far-flung future when BS's and Faction BS's have been balanced in 2013 / 2014 or when we next see iteration on what's likely to be yet another dead and forgotten CCP project?

Add these changes down the road as a comprehensive remap of missions / PLEXs / Exploration? Sure. Add these changes as a remap of the... well... pretty much anything? Sure. Adding these changes because all this content is boring and it'll be more interesting because you have to pay more attention? Please...

I get the whole HTFU, and the whole adapt or die, but what's exactly the pay-off behind adapting to random seemingly pointless changes that just make it harder? That would be like replacing the current POS system with something HARDER, just because. no? Doubly when it's a change that doesn't actually affect everyone evenly. IE - Tengu pilots merrily solo blapping their way through... well... everything, certainly aren't going to see much of a change (unless they're doing it with fighter support, then I guess they'll be crying a lot).
xXxNIMRODxXx
Arial Enterprise
Sigma Grindset
#590 - 2012-09-25 01:17:10 UTC
Tru Love wrote:
Starakus wrote:
From a developer point of view I can not see why on earth this is being done and being done the way it is being done.

Here is the best way to implement your new AI if you are really hell bent on having a new one:

-Do not implement the new AI on ANY old content.
-Create entirely new missions, encounters, experiences, and rewards based around your new AI.

The benefits:
-As a player you retain the sandbox experience. Players continue to have a choice about their game experience and which kind of content they wish to participate in.

-As a Dev you don't have to examine and tweak every individual mission, complex, and site for problems and forum complaints.
-As a Dev you can start by creating an example mission where people can test the newly introduced set of missions under a controlled scenario with different ship setups, drones, and player compositions.
-As a Dev you don't have account for every single situation where your new AI changes have broken parts of the game that you did not think of, ignored, or missed.

-As a company you retain the player base that actually enjoys the way content is and has been for near a decade.
-As a company you bring in new players and retain old ones because you are actually releasing new content.

Any other way and your looking at losing customers and in the process creating a nightmare of work for yourself by having to retweak every single mission and each individual mission scenario.
In addition you risk breaking many parts of the game that obviously were not considered, such as PVP mission ganking, ninja salvaging, and much more. By creating an example mission, every player class and every play style from PVP to PVE to anything in between can run and gank this mission, bring in lower level friends, ninja salvage, test and plug grief tactics and identify and plug possible exploits.

If I decide to quit it won't be because I dislike the proposed new AI system, but because of the way it is being implemented. In its current form it breaks existing content that was previously not broken and takes away attention and Dev time from issues in the game that are clearly still broken such as the inventory system, bounty system, alliance and corporation system, medals system, black ops, and the list endless. The forums are ripe with issues from the player community that remain to be addressed and with these proposed changes and in the manner in which they are being proposed is just begging for even more player discontent based on mission bugs or its effect on their style of gameplay.

I hope you take these suggestions as a player who really does not want to quit and has stated the obvious not out of criticism but as a genuine way to retain your player base and better the game.

Not empty quoting.

Not empty quoting n.2

And, THIS is constructive criticism.

But obviously, you never listen to us when we say WE DON'T WANT IT. Not this way, at least.

Listen, i get it that you want to ged rid of mission botters and stuff as old code, but do you constantly have to damage also real players? Can't you simply split the two things?

I won't be able to run my missions in peace anymore, like i always did: target that, kill the trigger for last, enjoy some conversation, talk to the phone. No, in your point of view i have to pay attention like a mad PvPer even fighting high sec rats...MAAAAAAAAN if this is awkard and awful.
IF i want to feel stress, pain and fear, and yell at something, I go in O.O. Or do a roam in lowsec.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#591 - 2012-09-25 01:33:26 UTC
Adigard wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Not that we can test this while the server is down, but you could atleast test it before going off on another rant. You have no idea how it's going to work yet, so you can't say it will be a disaster. My ship progression was vexor, myrm, domi then rattler, so I'm hardly indifferent to the changes, but can atleast wait until it's tested.


To be fair, it's been tested, and most of the results I've read were less than desirable in the "more work" category. I don't think I've read a single report from a single drone user who didn't notice extra work, but with no extra return on that work-load.

And really that's pretty much been the answer everyone who's performed testing has came back with... to varying degrees. Last I checked this WAS still a game, that's supposed to be enjoyable? Adding more work because you don't like a few people cheating doesn't sound very.. fun to me?

The CCP Dev's answer was "Yup, more work, but you'll cope!"
Others have found it not to be too bad, but definitely more micro-managey (that's not a word, right?)
Personally my testing isn't finished, but I can't actually DO any new testing with the server down... So what do we discuss on a discussion forum when we can't really discuss testing? I'm fairly certain this patch won't destroy drone use or anything silly, and I'm fairly certain it won't touch AFK Domi missioning (without demolishing standard drone use).

As things currently stand, the last word I heard from the CCP Dev was that it'd be down until the weekend... so... not much testing apparently can be performed anytime soon?

CCP FoxFour wrote:
Both of these groups will have to change and adapt to the new gameplay, but so long as they put a bit of effort into they can more than easily come up with a new plan that works just as well.


I guess the question remains... Why? You're adding complexity for no seemingly good reason and pretty much no stated pay-off for the players. And we get to cope. I'm not seeing the pro's here, really. Can you enlighten me what this lovely change of yours is going to do for us in the immediate future? Not the far-flung future when BS's and Faction BS's have been balanced in 2013 / 2014 or when we next see iteration on what's likely to be yet another dead and forgotten CCP project?

Add these changes down the road as a comprehensive remap of missions / PLEXs / Exploration? Sure. Add these changes as a remap of the... well... pretty much anything? Sure. Adding these changes because all this content is boring and it'll be more interesting because you have to pay more attention? Please...

I get the whole HTFU, and the whole adapt or die, but what's exactly the pay-off behind adapting to random seemingly pointless changes that just make it harder? That would be like replacing the current POS system with something HARDER, just because. no? Doubly when it's a change that doesn't actually affect everyone evenly. IE - Tengu pilots merrily solo blapping their way through... well... everything, certainly aren't going to see much of a change (unless they're doing it with fighter support, then I guess they'll be crying a lot).

Agreed, entirely.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Adigard
RubberDuckies
#592 - 2012-09-25 01:33:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Adigard
xXxNIMRODxXx wrote:
Tru Love wrote:
Starakus wrote:
From a developer point of view I can not see why on earth this is being done and being done the way it is being done.

Here is the best way to implement your new AI if you are really hell bent on having a new one:

-Do not implement the new AI on ANY old content.
-Create entirely new missions, encounters, experiences, and rewards based around your new AI.

The benefits:
-As a player you retain the sandbox experience. Players continue to have a choice about their game experience and which kind of content they wish to participate in.

-As a Dev you don't have to examine and tweak every individual mission, complex, and site for problems and forum complaints.
-As a Dev you can start by creating an example mission where people can test the newly introduced set of missions under a controlled scenario with different ship setups, drones, and player compositions.
-As a Dev you don't have account for every single situation where your new AI changes have broken parts of the game that you did not think of, ignored, or missed.

-As a company you retain the player base that actually enjoys the way content is and has been for near a decade.
-As a company you bring in new players and retain old ones because you are actually releasing new content.

Any other way and your looking at losing customers and in the process creating a nightmare of work for yourself by having to retweak every single mission and each individual mission scenario.
In addition you risk breaking many parts of the game that obviously were not considered, such as PVP mission ganking, ninja salvaging, and much more. By creating an example mission, every player class and every play style from PVP to PVE to anything in between can run and gank this mission, bring in lower level friends, ninja salvage, test and plug grief tactics and identify and plug possible exploits.

If I decide to quit it won't be because I dislike the proposed new AI system, but because of the way it is being implemented. In its current form it breaks existing content that was previously not broken and takes away attention and Dev time from issues in the game that are clearly still broken such as the inventory system, bounty system, alliance and corporation system, medals system, black ops, and the list endless. The forums are ripe with issues from the player community that remain to be addressed and with these proposed changes and in the manner in which they are being proposed is just begging for even more player discontent based on mission bugs or its effect on their style of gameplay.

I hope you take these suggestions as a player who really does not want to quit and has stated the obvious not out of criticism but as a genuine way to retain your player base and better the game.

Not empty quoting.

Not empty quoting n.2

And, THIS is constructive criticism.

But obviously, you never listen to us when we say WE DON'T WANT IT. Not this way, at least.

Listen, i get it that you want to ged rid of mission botters and stuff as old code, but do you constantly have to damage also real players? Can't you simply split the two things?

I won't be able to run my missions in peace anymore, like i always did: target that, kill the trigger for last, enjoy some conversation, talk to the phone. No, in your point of view i have to pay attention like a mad PvPer even fighting high sec rats...MAAAAAAAAN if this is awkard and awful.
IF i want to feel stress, pain and fear, and yell at something, I go in O.O. Or do a roam in lowsec.


Easy answer is easy, implement your new Rat AI, by having it work exactly the way it works now, and tell everyone that you've done it... and that in the future you'll be able to do all these magical things.

Guess what? This thread would be full of people patting the Dev's on the back for finally listening to everyone asking for smarter NPC AI's.

Instead, at this time, we have a whole raft of unintended consequences, the likes of which we can't even imagine atm, but mostly involving making of multiple player professions harder if not impossible (having alts salvage missions while the main clears them), Exploration content in edge cases (10/10) or exploration with a CovOps alt popping cans, ninja salvaging, killing mission bears in low-sec space by allowing the NPC's to deal the damage, taking your newbie low-SP friends into L4 missions with you for ISK / fleet experience / stuff to do.
Rengerel en Distel
#593 - 2012-09-25 02:37:07 UTC
I posted in the test forum thread that perhaps rats shouldn't ewar drones, and shouldn't switch to drones unless the rats are atleast BC sized. It's mostly the smaller, quicker ships and ewar that eat drones. Heavy drones are just going to get boned regardless, and it will be interesting to see how much they are used.
Also, the drone UI showing that the drones are getting targetted would be good. Yellow/Red boxing the in space graphic would be good, flashing box around their name in the drone UI, anything so that we know they're being attacked before they're half dead.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Miss Le NerfSxBye
State War Academy
Caldari State
#594 - 2012-09-25 03:20:09 UTC
Xython wrote:
Question. If we're "Fixing" systems in EVE that are boring and AFK friendly...

When the hell is the anti-AFK mining fix coming?


Would a spawn of cruiser rats take care of that problem?
Eloque
Geuzen Inc
#595 - 2012-09-25 07:27:48 UTC
Personally, I always thought that the whole single minded targeting done by the NPC's was bothersome and counter intuitive. I mean it felt completly absurb. Imagine a real life MBT standing into an open field capturing attention while long range snipers take out the actual enemies. I might work for the first few, but after the third or so kill, the enemy will try to find the thing that is actually killing them.

Same should go for Eve. If my buddy warps in a Tengu and 'grabs aggro' to 'tank the room' and a second or so later the rest of us warps in our Manticores to lay down the hurt, the NPC should react to that and not mindlessly keep blasting the Tengu. At that point it's not the primary thing killing them.

Adaptive AI, even if it's just target switching, is awesome. It makes combat less predictable and more chaotic. It means it's a lot more thinking and hopefully makes it harder. Right now, we either bring enough tank, or we don't. If we do we clear the room, if we don't we warp out the Tengu and try again with more tank. Not much diversity there.

So I applaud meaner NPC's, better NPC's and nastier NPC's. But don't stop there. Hide a random flight of stealth bombers in those plexes, let us fear those torpedo salvos. We bring around a fleet? They bring jump in a capital. Unpredictable. Fun. And exciting.

The number one thing that makes PvE somewhat duller then PvP is that the PvE things are way to predictable. All missions, plexes etc. have been done, mapped and blogged. Changes like this, make it little bit harder again.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#596 - 2012-09-25 07:35:37 UTC
FSixteen wrote:
Im gallente / sentry drone spec only. It would be perfect to get a audio warning when NPC starts targeting or attacking my drone that would sound different from my ship being targeted? Also an option where we could turn all other sounds off but drone being attacked with single "tick" in the sounds menu would be nice for droneboat users. Then this change would be OK. Thanks in advance for "drone under attack" audio warning.

Good idea. Though I would prefer having more notifications that drone took aggro not just by sound. Like sound and some overlay boxes around attacked drones.
Another suggestion: auto-return options for drones will be good too. Put a checkbox in drone settings to return to drone bay after being attacked, but not redeploy without player input (so no AFK).
And please consider making drones protected from ewar. You just can't save webbed drone.
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#597 - 2012-09-25 08:36:24 UTC
Eloque wrote:
Personally, I always thought that the whole single minded targeting done by the NPC's was bothersome and counter intuitive. I mean it felt completly absurb. Imagine a real life MBT standing into an open field capturing attention while long range snipers take out the actual enemies. I might work for the first few, but after the third or so kill, the enemy will try to find the thing that is actually killing them.

Same should go for Eve. If my buddy warps in a Tengu and 'grabs aggro' to 'tank the room' and a second or so later the rest of us warps in our Manticores to lay down the hurt, the NPC should react to that and not mindlessly keep blasting the Tengu. At that point it's not the primary thing killing them.

Adaptive AI, even if it's just target switching, is awesome. It makes combat less predictable and more chaotic. It means it's a lot more thinking and hopefully makes it harder. Right now, we either bring enough tank, or we don't. If we do we clear the room, if we don't we warp out the Tengu and try again with more tank. Not much diversity there.

So I applaud meaner NPC's, better NPC's and nastier NPC's. But don't stop there. Hide a random flight of stealth bombers in those plexes, let us fear those torpedo salvos. We bring around a fleet? They bring jump in a capital. Unpredictable. Fun. And exciting.

The number one thing that makes PvE somewhat duller then PvP is that the PvE things are way to predictable. All missions, plexes etc. have been done, mapped and blogged. Changes like this, make it little bit harder again.

Indeed.

It's currently stupid that I can warp with a Rattlesnake, grab aggro with an effing TP and then release drone and have a coffee break while my drones kill the red dots who hopelessly fire at my (hopefully well tanked) Rattlesnake.


Bringing n00bs with you in small ships won't be an issue since they will get targetted by the smaller rats, who you want 'em to kill anyway,

But bringing a big elephant into the circus with the sole purpose of getting and tanking all aggro is a fail tactic (even if it works now) and it should be a fail tactic.

CCP Greyscale: As to starbases, we agree it's pretty terrible, but we don't want to delay the entire release just for this one factor.
Eloque
Geuzen Inc
#598 - 2012-09-25 11:08:29 UTC
Lors Dornick wrote:

But bringing a big elephant into the circus with the sole purpose of getting and tanking all aggro is a fail tactic (even if it works now) and it should be a fail tactic.


It should be. The meta-game should be secondary to the immersion. Most the negative comments I read here are about the mechanics changing. Drones being targetted etc.

What would you do, if a drone boat warped in and started unleashing drones against you. (You are the NPC here, not the capsuleer) I would damn sure take out the drones if I could.

If there is a big ship out primarly protecting some smaller ships, and that protection is in the end nothing more then holding up a big sign saying "shoot me!" then yes, I would destroy the smaller ships. They are easier to destroy and those Manti's do more hurt then the Tengu's.

Say there is an air raid, if you have a choice of destroying enemy artillery or the tanks protecting that artillery, what would you do? I would sure as hell destroy those artillery pieces first. They hurt me more, they are easier to destroy, and once gone, I can bring my own artillery to bear.

Eve NPC's should behave the same. Target the highest threar, or easiest kill, or most expensive asset. If the NPC's can make me backoff because they intelligently attack my most valuable resource instead of the resource I want them to attack, then more power to them.

Why would they not attack drones? They are nasty buggers that hurt, but they are made of paper.
Why would they not attack intercepators? They are nasty buggesr that hurt, but they are made paper.

Show me one good reason why any sane enemy would attack a neigh indestructable foe when there are other targets to be had. We, players, don't do that, why would the NPC enemies?

I want them to behave like enemies, not like dull predicatble automatons.
Adigard
RubberDuckies
#599 - 2012-09-25 11:17:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Adigard
Eloque wrote:
Personally, I always thought that the whole single minded targeting done by the NPC's was bothersome and counter intuitive. I mean it felt completly absurb. Imagine a real life MBT standing into an open field capturing attention while long range snipers take out the actual enemies. I might work for the first few, but after the third or so kill, the enemy will try to find the thing that is actually killing them.


So, you're not aware of the 'currently implemented' change?

You've got your main battle tank out there shooting at targets, and the NPC's are shooting back. Now a random nobody walks into the field and the tank stops shooting. The rats stop shooting the thing that's been killing them, and open fire on the nobody until he's dead, and only then swaps back to the thing that's been killing them all along.

Eloque wrote:
What would you do, if a drone boat warped in and started unleashing drones against you. (You are the NPC here, not the capsuleer) I would damn sure take out the drones if I could.


I don't recall player's swapping targets to kill drones terribly often in PvP... seems kinda counter-productive when the drones go away when the controlling ship dies. Also, there tends to be 5x more drones than players... and the player's have (in some cases) more than a single flight of drones. Sounds terribly counterproductive to kill his waves of added support while he continues to whittle you down.

Eloque wrote:
I want them to behave like enemies, not like dull predicatble automatons.


Right. And guess what? They don't. I think Sleeper AI is better at randomly swapping targets. These guys just seem to say "welp, new target, shoot it 'til it's dead".

Could be wrong, hard to be sure, the test server doesn't seem to be up anymore.

Although, it does bring up the counter-argument of, why do you want them to behave intelligently when there are 20x or 40x of them, to your sole ship. You want intelligence, but only so much, unless the goal is to lose 100% of the time in missions?
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#600 - 2012-09-25 11:27:23 UTC
Eloque wrote:
Lors Dornick wrote:

But bringing a big elephant into the circus with the sole purpose of getting and tanking all aggro is a fail tactic (even if it works now) and it should be a fail tactic.


It should be. The meta-game should be secondary to the immersion. Most the negative comments I read here are about the mechanics changing. Drones being targetted etc.

What would you do, if a drone boat warped in and started unleashing drones against you. (You are the NPC here, not the capsuleer) I would damn sure take out the drones if I could.

If there is a big ship out primarly protecting some smaller ships, and that protection is in the end nothing more then holding up a big sign saying "shoot me!" then yes, I would destroy the smaller ships. They are easier to destroy and those Manti's do more hurt then the Tengu's.

Say there is an air raid, if you have a choice of destroying enemy artillery or the tanks protecting that artillery, what would you do? I would sure as hell destroy those artillery pieces first. They hurt me more, they are easier to destroy, and once gone, I can bring my own artillery to bear.

Eve NPC's should behave the same. Target the highest threar, or easiest kill, or most expensive asset. If the NPC's can make me backoff because they intelligently attack my most valuable resource instead of the resource I want them to attack, then more power to them.

Why would they not attack drones? They are nasty buggers that hurt, but they are made of paper.
Why would they not attack intercepators? They are nasty buggesr that hurt, but they are made paper.

Show me one good reason why any sane enemy would attack a neigh indestructable foe when there are other targets to be had. We, players, don't do that, why would the NPC enemies?

I want them to behave like enemies, not like dull predicatble automatons.


Fine with me.

Please adapt all NPC spawns FIRST (with the new AI in mind), adapt drone ui SECOND and THEN go and adapt NPC AI.

Please browse back a bit to see a list i made of requirements that have to be fulfilled before PvE will be similar to PvP. None of that is currently the case.