These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#661 - 2012-09-26 13:30:56 UTC
When the Devs aren't changing the damage reduction en mass (ok, there is the tiericide going on, but that's a completely different matter) or changing NPC damage in any way, how exactly do exact numbers come into the mix?
Your comparing apples to oranges trying to claim a Diablo III DR change is the same as an NPC AI change. (That is still two months out from being implemented)
Care Bear King
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#662 - 2012-09-26 13:54:51 UTC
So... learn to love target painters?
Fortunately, this won't change my fit in the least.

Only real impact should be fewer ninja salvagers.
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#663 - 2012-09-26 13:55:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Urgg Boolean wrote:
It is clear that the Diablo III devs have played their game extensively, understand how the users play their toons, and have very carefully and thoroughly thought through their changes, after communicating with their player base.

If the EvE NPC AI change follows historical patterns, we will continue to test it out, offer feedback; that feedback will be ignored, and the change will happen whether we want it or not in, and in whatever half baked form it is in. (reference the UI changes or CQ's or many others)


Why is it always that players can see this but CCP can't?

Of course we need more information, but the comment about "EWAR,logistics"damage" worries me.

It' almost sounds like there will be some different kind of way to take and hold aggro (would i REALLY have to put an ecm mod on my tengu and try to jammed a Guristas Fleet Stronghold to keep the citadel torp from slaughtering the rest of the plex team?). If so, how is this different from what we have now, other than forcing our Tank and drone ships to fit ewar modules that "solo" mission and anomaly runners don't even have to screw with?

As for DEVs knowing there games, well..... I have nothing but respect for Foxfour and CCP, but I remain stunned by her admission that she's not familiar at all with FLEET STAGING POINT (and probably not with any other high end DED/exploration content), something so incredibly common that EVERY null sec explorer is intimately familiar with. If you don't have a firm grasp of the content you are changing, how can you responsibly change it without messing it up?


Just want to point out the Torp Chucker at the end is EWAR immune.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#664 - 2012-09-26 14:06:11 UTC
Lallante wrote:


Yes. I support an isk income nerf for ****** forms of PvE. Deal with it.


Please, pray tell, how do YOU make your ISK for PvP?

Industry?
Scams?
Trading?
Selling Plexes?

The simple economics of the game ensure that not everyone can make a living doing the first 3, and the 4th option, well, that is just pathetic.
Care Bear King
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#665 - 2012-09-26 15:08:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Care Bear King
After some consideration, I'll grade CCP with a C on this proposed change.

They get a B for the planned AI changes:

- Should have included cynos, podding and NPCs warping away, but then stepped those aspects into the AI with increasing levels of difficulty of missions, exploration, ratting, etc. You're not going to get PvE fits that look remotely like PvP fits until PvEers are forced to fit points (if only for the target mobs in missions or while ratting). Podding in missions is not as big of a deal as some at CCP think it to be - simply don't introduce it until L4s (or the equivalent in other PvE content) and make sure players are aware of it via a pop-up the first time they accept an L4 mission (or enter an equivalent site). Please note: This is the Care Bear King chastising you for half-measures on this one.

They get a D for the execution of the changes:

- On the negative side, the implementation is unwisely rushed due to time constraints or design cycles. A better approach would have been to turn on NPC AI on a per-mission basis as each mission and exploration site was reviewed for compatibility with the new AI. Throwing the new AI out there and into missions that weren't designed for it is messy and oh so ~CCP~. If you don't have the time to go mission by mission and turn the AI on, you won't have the time to iterate mission by mission after the fact and fix everything that is potentially broken... so leave the PvE sites in a working state rather than a potentially broken state until you do have time.

- There doesn't appear to be a positive reason given to players for implementing this aside from CCP's long term goal of making PvE fits and PvP fits similar. I personally think there are some positive ramifications (ninja salvagers and low sec mission gankers will have a bit more trouble now), but these aren't really being sold as reasons for the change. As stated above, if the primary positive justification for this is to make PvE fits similar to PvP fits - don't wuss out. Without forcing a point on the fit, you've failed.

- There are some changes to drones and drone management that should happen before these changes are put into place. Again, you may promise they'll be done after the fact, but... ~CCP~. Two required changes that should have been made to drones before putting this into place:

--> Some sort of optional sound cue when drones are under attack (there is already a visible cue in the form of their health bar, but the drone menu is one of the first to lose real estate on ****** small screens - aka, laptops).

--> Expanding the AI of aggressive drones to re-engage NPCs which have already aggressd the player upon being deployed. As it stands, they sit there dumbly until either the player can get a lock and command them to attack, or another NPC spawns and aggresses the player for the first time. This can be problematic in certain caldari missions which feature copious amounts of hax ECM. (Thus why I avoid PvE in Caldari space.)

.
.
.

...and because I feel the need to post this reminder every other EvE Gate post:

- Drones need to follow a d/c player into warp or, alternatively, have an option the player can check to auto recall their drones before the d/c warp off happens. (It's not related to the topic at hand - but... come on already!)
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#666 - 2012-09-26 15:18:58 UTC
MIrple wrote:

Just want to point out the Torp Chucker at the end is EWAR immune.


Damn, you're right. Still don't know how it will work, maybe it will end up being if you use ewar on any npc.

Like i said, we'll see how it goes and you never know what new stuff people will come up with (I'm already theory crafting "smart bomb/firewall" tanking lol).
MIrple
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#667 - 2012-09-26 15:45:42 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
MIrple wrote:

Just want to point out the Torp Chucker at the end is EWAR immune.


Damn, you're right. Still don't know how it will work, maybe it will end up being if you use ewar on any npc.

Like i said, we'll see how it goes and you never know what new stuff people will come up with (I'm already theory crafting "smart bomb/firewall" tanking lol).


I am all for the change TBH I do not think that the Drones will be that big of an issue. Yes I am a gal pilot and yes I ran lvl 4 missions before. People will adapt to this. I think like you pointed out there are a few DED's that need to be looked at and with 2 months that should be enough time for them to make sure it works properly.
Drone 16
Holy Horde
#668 - 2012-09-26 16:23:10 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Migrator Soul wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:


A sea of tears over this... you should have seen what else we wanted the NPC to do. Pirate


Please, do it then. Hell, even the current sleeper AI is laughably easy.. I would love to see NPC AI become on par with player skill, therefore increasing the difficulty of missions..


Our ultimate goal is that PvP and PvE fits should be the same and a lot of the thought process should be the same. That is... a long way off though.


Hello CCP FoxFour,

I am not sure if you are still monitoring this post but I will throw out a quick idea I had a while back regarding making PVE more like PVP.

Why not make low-sec missions that have mission requirements that involve elements of PVP as opposed to tanking and destroying red crosses. These missions would be for players that would be open to using logi cruisers, tackling frigs maybe even EW depending on how the mission is designed. T2 variants of ships would obviously get the job done faster.

eg. Mission requires inty or fast frig to close with and scramble lead pirate/naval guy. He would be speeding away at a pace a BS could not close with.

eg. rep a certain structure before "enemy fleet" arrives.

eg. such and such ship is issuing an S.O.S. player must arrive on scene and either rep or mitigate damage to the ship until "help" arrives.

Missions like this would have a warning saying this ship type or that ship type is required and could be declined without penalty.

They would allow players to use atypical ships for missions and would require dodging/fighting the locals and would also require pvp type fits and mindset.

It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits

Lelob
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#669 - 2012-09-26 16:30:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lelob
Anyone know if it was already answered if all rats will now have warp disruptors on them now? Particularly in lowsec/null.

I ask this specifically, because it would be one of the greatest and most powerful things CCP could change as an anti-botting mechanism in favour of roaming groups/individuals.
Rengerel en Distel
#670 - 2012-09-26 16:51:23 UTC
Lelob wrote:
Anyone know if it was already answered if all rats will now have warp disruptors on them now? Particularly in lowsec/null.

I ask this specifically, because it would be one of the greatest and most powerful things CCP could change as an anti-botting mechanism in favour of roaming groups/individuals.


I believe the aggro mechanics are the only changes.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#671 - 2012-09-26 16:56:10 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lallante wrote:


Yes. I support an isk income nerf for ****** forms of PvE. Deal with it.


Please, pray tell, how do YOU make your ISK for PvP?

Industry?
Scams?
Trading?
Selling Plexes?

The simple economics of the game ensure that not everyone can make a living doing the first 3, and the 4th option, well, that is just pathetic.


Not everyone is a NIMBY baby. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY)
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#672 - 2012-09-26 18:21:33 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lallante wrote:


Yes. I support an isk income nerf for ****** forms of PvE. Deal with it.


Please, pray tell, how do YOU make your ISK for PvP?

Industry?
Scams?
Trading?
Selling Plexes?

The simple economics of the game ensure that not everyone can make a living doing the first 3, and the 4th option, well, that is just pathetic.


Not everyone is a NIMBY baby. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY)


Never answered my question, because you can't.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#673 - 2012-09-26 19:09:35 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lallante wrote:


Yes. I support an isk income nerf for ****** forms of PvE. Deal with it.


Please, pray tell, how do YOU make your ISK for PvP?

Industry?
Scams?
Trading?
Selling Plexes?

The simple economics of the game ensure that not everyone can make a living doing the first 3, and the 4th option, well, that is just pathetic.


Not everyone is a NIMBY baby. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY)


Never answered my question, because you can't.

I can't answer how I make my isk? I trade, do 0.0 exploration, have lived in WHs and have done incursions and FW.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#674 - 2012-09-26 19:48:03 UTC
MIrple wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
MIrple wrote:

Just want to point out the Torp Chucker at the end is EWAR immune.


Damn, you're right. Still don't know how it will work, maybe it will end up being if you use ewar on any npc.

Like i said, we'll see how it goes and you never know what new stuff people will come up with (I'm already theory crafting "smart bomb/firewall" tanking lol).


I am all for the change TBH I do not think that the Drones will be that big of an issue. Yes I am a gal pilot and yes I ran lvl 4 missions before. People will adapt to this. I think like you pointed out there are a few DED's that need to be looked at and with 2 months that should be enough time for them to make sure it works properly.

I don't see drone use itself as an issue but the reduced efficiency of drone ships. Strategies for cruisers which relied on dropping sentries and orbiting often had the ship itself doing little to no damage. Being that the rats will switch based on the greatest threat this means that the drone ship will now have to do something, using a mod it otherwise probably wouldn't even fit, to keep aggression for this to work and somehow hold it.

Larger ships may have less of an issue with sentries but those that use heavy's, with their travel time, may see an issue if drones need frequently recalled. So the same issue remains of needing to either outdamage you drones, in which case why are you in a drone ship, or gimp your fit with Ewar/logistics to keep aggression, which non-drone ships won't have to do.

And with logistics being a threat combined with a reduced priority for drones, who knows, the AFK, permatanking, sentry repping domi may be the least affected drone setup.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#675 - 2012-09-26 20:04:16 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:


I don't see drone use itself as an issue but the reduced efficiency of drone ships. Strategies for cruisers which relied on dropping sentries and orbiting often had the ship itself doing little to no damage. Being that the rats will switch based on the greatest threat this means that the drone ship will now have to do something, using a mod it otherwise probably wouldn't even fit, to keep aggression for this to work and somehow hold it.

OR remote repair. Yes. This is the exact point of the change as loads of people were dropping drones and speed tanking the rats afk.
Quote:

Larger ships may have less of an issue with sentries but those that use heavy's, with their travel time, may see an issue if drones need frequently recalled. So the same issue remains of needing to either outdamage you drones, in which case why are you in a drone ship, or gimp your fit with Ewar/logistics to keep aggression, which non-drone ships won't have to do.

This is true but doesnt seem to stop people using drones vs Sleepers.
Quote:

And with logistics being a threat combined with a reduced priority for drones, who knows, the AFK, permatanking, sentry repping domi may be the least affected drone setup.

Yes thats true, but a (lol) FoF cruise raven can do the same.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#676 - 2012-09-26 20:34:59 UTC
Lallante wrote:
OR remote repair. Yes. This is the exact point of the change as loads of people were dropping drones and speed tanking the rats afk.

Considering sig tanking in cruisers in a legitimate at the keyboard practice I'm not sure I can agree with trying to kill it for one weapons system just because it can be abused.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#677 - 2012-09-26 20:35:07 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lallante wrote:


Yes. I support an isk income nerf for ****** forms of PvE. Deal with it.


Please, pray tell, how do YOU make your ISK for PvP?

Industry?
Scams?
Trading?
Selling Plexes?

The simple economics of the game ensure that not everyone can make a living doing the first 3, and the 4th option, well, that is just pathetic.


Not everyone is a NIMBY baby. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY)


Never answered my question, because you can't.

I can't answer how I make my isk? I trade, do 0.0 exploration, have lived in WHs and have done incursions and FW.


And I have done the 0.0 exploration, and wh's. The vast part of my wealth was derived from 0.0.
I see you do Incursions and FW.....glad to see you taking advantage of the 3 day alt making 1 billion / day.
No wonder you gloat over mission runners being wiped out.
Adigard
RubberDuckies
#678 - 2012-09-26 22:34:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Adigard
Lallante wrote:
Yes. I support an isk income nerf for ****** forms of PvE. Deal with it.


Rock: Nerf Paper. Scissors is fine.

Lallante wrote:
They're not touching my income stream, screw everyone else.


Fixed your post for ya.


Also pointing out that Buckingham is still MIA, so absolutely no testing until this weekend at the earliest, when CCP very definitely won't be in the offices to read any testing we do.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#679 - 2012-09-26 22:51:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Changes like this should be fast-tracked through the NDA process to give players the ability to build confidence in the CSM.

The change is probably necessary, and I think it's past due. But players should have found out about it in the minutes, probably along with a number of other slated features.

The NDA hurts player confidence in the CSM when unpopular issues "appear to slip by them." Try to make it a more nimble process.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Adigard
RubberDuckies
#680 - 2012-09-26 23:44:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Adigard
Darth Gustav wrote:
Changes like this should be fast-tracked through the NDA process to give players the ability to build confidence in the CSM.


It's a minor nerf to solo player / small group income. What makes you think the 0.0 dominated CSM wasn't cheering when it was announced?

Also, the CCP Dev's are not NDA'ed and the Dev Blog doesn't mention any sort of eventual payoff that would be blocked by a NDA.