These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Winter] Changes to NPC AI

First post
Author
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#241 - 2012-10-23 02:42:20 UTC
Planktal wrote:
Did some more testing, some lvl4s as well as some lvl1s and lvl2s, in the new destroyers. Sweet rides by the way, bear to fit tho. More often than not as soon as lights were launched they were targeted and destroyed like Sleepers do, meds and heavies... nothing, just like on TQ. Once I had aggro I could release meds or heavies and the rats would ignore them, they would swap between my logistic alt and myself but ignored the drones unless they were lights or sentries.
If the new AI is going to come to TQ your really going to have to look at how missions/deadspace sites spawn/work. Beefing up NPCs and removing some is one way to help balance things, fewer targets but stronger ones.


Clearly, the AI is not ready for TQ.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#242 - 2012-10-23 03:22:48 UTC
Quote:
Clearly, the AI is not ready for TQ.


in a test environment ! outrageous !
Lors Dornick
Kallisti Industries
#243 - 2012-10-23 03:37:48 UTC
Ran some (2 each) missions in Rattler and Gila and while the drones did get quite a lot of aggro it was easy to manage.

Just recall the drone in question and/or ship a (totally useless) cruise/hvy missile at the misbehaving rats.

I also noticed, possibly, that they tend to react on what modules you've fitted, not just on what you actually use.

So just fitting a shield transporter on my ship gave an obvious higher issue with the rats, without even targeting my drones or even close to using it.

I like the new AI, it invalidates a lot of old dogma and guides, and it requires you to think, so it's fun.

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.

Adigard
RubberDuckies
#244 - 2012-10-23 10:05:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Adigard
Gilbaron wrote:
Quote:
Clearly, the AI is not ready for TQ.


in a test environment ! outrageous !


You're new to this game, right?

Lors Dornick wrote:
I like the new AI, it invalidates a lot of old dogma and guides, and it requires you to think, so it's fun.


I found myself agreeing with elements of this statement... but not really sure I'd go so far as to equate it to fun. If the current version goes live (or if a modified version goes live without player testing) we'll certainly have to re-write the book on running certain missions... but some missions will be a lot less fun without tradeoffs (which won't make Eve PvE more fun). The frigate / elite frigate heavy missions won't be terribly enjoyable for drone user's, while not impacting the standard solo L4 mission runners... at all.

The new AI changes absolutely nothing for a solo player flying a drone-less HAM Tengu... while making life harder for drone-only users.

Although... if the test server is still up this evening I'll have to test a rattler with a shield RR module... but your findings seem to suggest the Dual AFK Domi is getting another unexpected buff from this patch...
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#245 - 2012-10-23 12:05:05 UTC
Foxfour could you please respond to the concerns raised with regards to ninja salvaging, mission flipping, awoxing and solo hunting ratters?

You have been doing a great job replying to the people who are slightly affected by small changes in their missions, I'd appreciate it if you gave those of us who's professions are removed from the game (ninja salvaging, mission flipping) and heavily impacted (awoxing, solo hunting) a similar service.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#246 - 2012-10-23 14:21:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Bugsy VanHalen
CCP FoxFour wrote:


May I ask what level 5 missions you ran?

I vary between 2 accounts. One that is all maxed out with all level 5 skills and one that I apply the needed skills to as I go and delete every so often.


I do not recall all of them as I did not write down the mission names, but Sansha Acquisition was the one I had the most trouble with. There were so many frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, which seemed to all target my logistics (a basilisk sharing cap transfers with the main tank.) and I just could not keep it alive without gimping its repair ability to the point where it might as well not even be there. I'm sure it can be done with different tactics, And I was able to warp out my BS's as the web/scram drones did not target them in time. But it was still very frustrating.

I also got the big sting mission chain. couldn't get past big sting 2 of 3.

It seemed to be working as described, but it was very frustrating to have everything cruiser and smaller going after my logi. This would be fine in other missions where there are not so many small ships, I actually did complete two missions fairly easy where most of the spawns were BC's and BS's. I know this can be worked around by having a T3 cruiser in fleet to pull and tank the agro of all the smaller ships. But these missions were much easier before and could be done with 2 BS's a BC and a logi.

I get the whole learning new tactics to counter the changes. perhaps the old full fleet of RR BS's will be the best way to deal with the new agro. But there are many players who run these missions that do not read the forums, or run on the test servers. These players will likely be blind sided by these changes. many players have rage quit for far less.

I apologize for my stubborn attitude. I have just been very frustrated at the amount of impact this change is having on my play style. I just need time to adapt, just like with the unified inventory. I personally enjoy a challenge and learning new tactics to over come changes. if nothing else it keeps the game from getting boring. This will be a major change. I expect a lot of rage when this goes live. I know several players who have rage quit after losing a CNR or Golem running missions. Do you really think there will be no rage quitting after losing a whole gang of 1/2 billion isk ships when their fool prof tactics suddenly no longer work? Sure it is there own fault for flying ships they can not afford to lose, and not adapting to the changes. But that will not stop them from rage quitting. Lost subs are lost subs.

Level 5 missions are barely doable now, with the issues of being jumped by pirates. Making the NPC's even more dangerous, although a welcome change in many other area's will not be a good thing for level 5 missions.

That being said however, An easy fix would be to move level 5 missions back to high sec. After all the reason they were moved out of high sec was due to the low risk for the big rewards they offered. This AI change will increase the risk, So they no longer need to be in low sec. After all incursions are basically equal to what level 6-7 missions would be, and they are in high sec. Moving level 5 missions back to high sec would fill the gap between solo level 4 mission running and 8-12 ship fleets needed for vanguards. PVE content for 3-6 ship gangs is all that is missing from high sec. If the risk of running these missions in low sec was removed, the added risk from the new AI would be much easier to accept.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#247 - 2012-10-23 14:56:18 UTC
Sigh....well, CCP Goliath was as good as his word.
Duality is down again.

We were given a 4 day window to test hugely game-changing mechanics, with immensely far-ranging effects.
Of course, in that 4 day window, Duality was late getting up, and was heavily lagged out as well.

Yeah, you guys at CCP proved yet again how much you value your customer's input.

I can only assume that you are madly scrambling to fix the hugest holes found in the AI.
But why on earth do you need to bring down the server for that?

Do you dev's identify an issue in the code, alter the code, then upload it to Duality, or an internal server, for internal testing?

What precisely is the process you follow to fix the AI holes we have identified?

Derath Ellecon
Lotek Academy
#248 - 2012-10-23 16:28:39 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:
Lots of words



This may not be the appropriate place but I'll throw it out anyhow. It sounds like what really needs to happen (of course it won't) is that missions and anoms need to be adjusted to account for the new AI. The old method to make these challenging with dumb AI is to simply add more NPCs. But that doesn't really work as well with the new "smarter" AI. Using Wormholes as an example, they generally have tougher NPC's with fancy AI, but far fewer numbers.
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#249 - 2012-10-23 17:07:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:

Level 5 missions are barely doable now, with the issues of being jumped by pirates. Making the NPC's even more dangerous, although a welcome change in many other area's will not be a good thing for level 5 missions.


Who cares about pirates when the rats will help you kill them?

Frankly I have to question why this AI needs to be implemented at all. Destroying numerous PVP professions in exchange for making missions and ratting even more of a pain in the ass for PVE players does not deliver any value whatsoever.

At the very least it needs to be postponed beyond the winter expansion and extensively tested to address concerns on both sides of the table. PVP concerns have been ignored or handwaved as "OK" for a month now and the clock is ticking on Retribution's release.
CCP FoxFour
C C P
C C P Alliance
#250 - 2012-10-23 18:56:42 UTC
There have been numerous questions about what, if anything, we are going to do about how this change will effect certain gameplay styles outside of running missions or ratting. Things like hunting ratters, ninja salvaging, and playing content with your new friends.

For the most part our stance is that we believe you will adapt and find a way to do it. In some cases this may mean increasing the barrier to entry, but we have already seen players coming up with new ways to do the same stuff.

We do have a concern about the ability for experienced players to bring new players along with them on content. We are also looking into this. What effect any changes we make here have on those other forms of gameplay is not entirely certain yet.

One of the things we are looking at is increasing how much threat you need to generate before the NPC switch. The specific case we want to look at solving is as I said an experienced player in a Tengu bringing a new player in a Rifter along. If that new player is doing very little damage we don't want all 15 frigates to suddenly decide he needs to die.

If what ever change we make to help mitigate that effects the other gameplay styles as well, then so be it. Our stance however is that those that want to will find a way to continue doing those other activities.

@CCP_FoxFour // Technical Designer // Team Tech Co

Third-party developer? Check out the official developers site for dev blogs, resources, and more.

Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#251 - 2012-10-23 19:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
CCP FoxFour wrote:
There have been numerous questions about what, if anything, we are going to do about how this change will effect certain gameplay styles outside of running missions or ratting. Things like hunting ratters, ninja salvaging, and playing content with your new friends.

For the most part our stance is that we believe you will adapt and find a way to do it. In some cases this may mean increasing the barrier to entry, but we have already seen players coming up with new ways to do the same stuff..


So the response to any PVP concerns is "deal with it". Wonderful.

CCP FoxFour wrote:
One of the things we are looking at is increasing how much threat you need to generate before the NPC switch. The specific case we want to look at solving is as I said an experienced player in a Tengu bringing a new player in a Rifter along. If that new player is doing very little damage we don't want all 15 frigates to suddenly decide he needs to die.


Why is this a specific case that needs solving and hunting ratters is not?

What happens if a ship on grid with the NPCs inflicts no damage on them and does not activate any assistance modules on ships that have aggressed the NPC? If I warp in a bomber and activate torpedo launchers and tackle/EWAR modules on a ratter, will this still generate aggression with the NPCs?

The aggression model needs to be smart enough to prevent NPCs from turning into de-facto bodyguards for ratters.

CCP FoxFour wrote:
If what ever change we make to help mitigate that effects the other gameplay styles as well, then so be it. Our stance however is that those that want to will find a way to continue doing those other activities.


I'm sorry but this really isn't going to work. You're willing to spend time with PVE players to address their concerns, why are PVP players being told to adapt and deal with it?
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#252 - 2012-10-23 19:54:56 UTC
Vatek wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:

[quote=CCP FoxFour]One of the things we are looking at is increasing how much threat you need to generate before the NPC switch. The specific case we want to look at solving is as I said an experienced player in a Tengu bringing a new player in a Rifter along. If that new player is doing very little damage we don't want all 15 frigates to suddenly decide he needs to die.


Why is this a specific case that needs solving and hunting ratters is not?

What happens if a ship on grid with the NPCs inflicts no damage on them and does not activate any assistance modules on ships that have aggressed the NPC? If I warp in a bomber and activate torpedo launchers and tackle/EWAR modules on a ratter, will this still generate aggression with the NPCs?

The aggression model needs to be smart enough to prevent NPCs from turning into de-facto bodyguards for ratters.



Pretty much this. If you want to make PvE 60% more irritating then by all means, go ahead. It's already soul-crushingly awful. But don't go making ratter ganks even fewer and further between. It's already difficult enough to even get on grid with a ratter before they warp out, much less hold a tackle when they start lighting you up. If you take aggro as well based on the size of your ship and whether you use ewar or not then ganking ratters is going to be next to impossible.

It's already difficult to tank ratters long enough to kill them when you're flying the kind of ship that can catch a ratter (bombers, inties, HACs, recons, etc)-- ratters usually do quite a bit of damage. If you then add to that a significant portion of the PvE site's DPS as well there's no way solo players are going to be able to gank ratters anymore, not to mention the fact that NPC aggro potentially mitigates players ability to tackle the ratter at all (NPC jamming or sensor damping is not conducive to point-holding).

You need to find a way to make your AI not switch to players who aren't engaging the rats or otherwise assisting a ratter. Full stop.
Bubanni
Corus Aerospace
#253 - 2012-10-23 20:18:16 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
There have been numerous questions about what, if anything, we are going to do about how this change will effect certain gameplay styles outside of running missions or ratting. Things like hunting ratters, ninja salvaging, and playing content with your new friends.

For the most part our stance is that we believe you will adapt and find a way to do it. In some cases this may mean increasing the barrier to entry, but we have already seen players coming up with new ways to do the same stuff.

We do have a concern about the ability for experienced players to bring new players along with them on content. We are also looking into this. What effect any changes we make here have on those other forms of gameplay is not entirely certain yet.

One of the things we are looking at is increasing how much threat you need to generate before the NPC switch. The specific case we want to look at solving is as I said an experienced player in a Tengu bringing a new player in a Rifter along. If that new player is doing very little damage we don't want all 15 frigates to suddenly decide he needs to die.

If what ever change we make to help mitigate that effects the other gameplay styles as well, then so be it. Our stance however is that those that want to will find a way to continue doing those other activities.


From what I understand from this, if someone lands next to someone ratting in 0.0 and tackles the him, the rats will not likely start shooting at the tackler, unless the tackler also started agressing the rats in some way

if someone warps into an anomaly with a noctis while someone is shooting the rats in a battleship, very few of the rats will mind that the noctis is salvaging, the chance of them starting to shoot the noctis is low but a frig or two might begin shooting it?

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#254 - 2012-10-23 20:23:40 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Vatek wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:

[quote=CCP FoxFour]One of the things we are looking at is increasing how much threat you need to generate before the NPC switch. The specific case we want to look at solving is as I said an experienced player in a Tengu bringing a new player in a Rifter along. If that new player is doing very little damage we don't want all 15 frigates to suddenly decide he needs to die.


Why is this a specific case that needs solving and hunting ratters is not?

What happens if a ship on grid with the NPCs inflicts no damage on them and does not activate any assistance modules on ships that have aggressed the NPC? If I warp in a bomber and activate torpedo launchers and tackle/EWAR modules on a ratter, will this still generate aggression with the NPCs?

The aggression model needs to be smart enough to prevent NPCs from turning into de-facto bodyguards for ratters.



Pretty much this. If you want to make PvE 60% more irritating then by all means, go ahead. It's already soul-crushingly awful. But don't go making ratter ganks even fewer and further between. It's already difficult enough to even get on grid with a ratter before they warp out, much less hold a tackle when they start lighting you up. If you take aggro as well based on the size of your ship and whether you use ewar or not then ganking ratters is going to be next to impossible.

It's already difficult to tank ratters long enough to kill them when you're flying the kind of ship that can catch a ratter (bombers, inties, HACs, recons, etc)-- ratters usually do quite a bit of damage. If you then add to that a significant portion of the PvE site's DPS as well there's no way solo players are going to be able to gank ratters anymore, not to mention the fact that NPC aggro potentially mitigates players ability to tackle the ratter at all (NPC jamming or sensor damping is not conducive to point-holding).

You need to find a way to make your AI not switch to players who aren't engaging the rats or otherwise assisting a ratter. Full stop.

Realistically the scenario mentioned doesn't have the NPC's evaluating if 2 pilots within their area of aggression are allied or not, just the amount of threat generated. So what benefits the allied new pilot in a rifter that isn't generating enough damage to trigger a switch also helps the enemy SB pilot since he isn't shooting the rats
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#255 - 2012-10-23 20:31:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Realistically the scenario mentioned doesn't have the NPC's evaluating if 2 pilots within their area of aggression are allied or not, just the amount of threat generated. So what benefits the allied new pilot in a rifter that isn't generating enough damage to trigger a switch also helps the enemy SB pilot since he isn't shooting the rats


In theory this is how it should work but based on Foxfour's earlier comments about solo ganking in a bomber "no longer being possible" and the devblog indicating that rats prefer to target ships closer to their own size, there is more to the switch trigger than just aggression.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#256 - 2012-10-23 20:37:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Vatek wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Realistically the scenario mentioned doesn't have the NPC's evaluating if 2 pilots within their area of aggression are allied or not, just the amount of threat generated. So what benefits the allied new pilot in a rifter that isn't generating enough damage to trigger a switch also helps the enemy SB pilot since he isn't shooting the rats


In theory this is how it should work but based on Foxfour's earlier comments about solo ganking in a bomber "no longer being possible" and the devblog indicating that rats prefer to target ships closer to their own size, there is more to the switch trigger than just aggression.

Indeed, but the comment presented about the Rifter flying with a Tengu seems aimed at that very scenario. The Rifter is a frig so the NPC frigs should prioritize killing it but threat level evaluation prevents that (or perhaps just reduces the likelihood?) and keeps them focused on the source of the DPS threatening them. If this general idea is implemented to some degree I can't see how they would fix one without fixing the other.

To be more direct if threat generation is needed to get aggression then something that generates no threat gets no aggression be it friend or foe of the missioner/plexer/ratter/etc. The only question is how hard the NPC's will stick to that mechanic, but regardless PvP'ers will benefit more than PvE'ers since the latter will be trying to generate some threat to the NPC's while the former will be concentrating solely on the PvE'er and generating less, if not no threat to the NPC's.
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#257 - 2012-10-23 20:40:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Indeed, but the comment presented about the Rifter flying with a Tengu seems aimed at that very scenario. The Rifter is a frig so the NPC frigs should prioritize killing it but threat level evaluation prevents that (or perhaps just reduces the likelihood?) and keeps them focused on the source of the DPS threatening them. If this general idea is implemented to some degree I can't see how they would fix one without fixing the other.


This is why I am asking what happens in a situation where a player ship generates no aggression towards the NPCs. We don't currently have a clear understanding on how threat generation works so it may well be that shooting at a ratter is generating aggression on the rats at the same time. This should not happen.

Player ships that are not aggressing the rats or assisting ships aggressing the rats should not be able to generate enough threat to have the rats switch to them. Furthermore, signature radius-based targeting should not apply against ships that are not generating threat. Ships generating threat should always be prioritized over ships that are not, regardless of differences in signature radius. The exception would be if there are no ships on grid generating threat, in which case the rats will pick targets as they currently do on a fresh grid warpin.

This would allow every profession that would be broken by this (ganking PVE pilots whether solo or in a gang, ninja salvaging, mission runner awoxing) to work as it currently continues to work, while ensuring that the AI functions as it should against the PVE pilots that are actually shooting the rats.

Pretty sure we're saying the same thing now, heh.
Typhado3
Peraka
#258 - 2012-10-23 21:11:22 UTC
CCP FoxFour wrote:
There have been numerous questions about what, if anything, we are going to do about how this change will effect certain gameplay styles outside of running missions or ratting. Things like hunting ratters, ninja salvaging, and playing content with your new friends.

For the most part our stance is that we believe you will adapt and find a way to do it. In some cases this may mean increasing the barrier to entry, but we have already seen players coming up with new ways to do the same stuff.

We do have a concern about the ability for experienced players to bring new players along with them on content. We are also looking into this. What effect any changes we make here have on those other forms of gameplay is not entirely certain yet.

One of the things we are looking at is increasing how much threat you need to generate before the NPC switch. The specific case we want to look at solving is as I said an experienced player in a Tengu bringing a new player in a Rifter along. If that new player is doing very little damage we don't want all 15 frigates to suddenly decide he needs to die.

If what ever change we make to help mitigate that effects the other gameplay styles as well, then so be it. Our stance however is that those that want to will find a way to continue doing those other activities.


The main problem for me isn't that I can't adapt but rather what is the cost of adapting.

I can adapt to run a spider tank that keeps my 3 characters alive, but with target switching the risk of bringing any new players in jumps dramatically. I can't really expect them to adapt rather they just need to learn a few new tactics before they can jump into missions. Maybe if I switched out my tactics to have 1 or 2 logistics I could count on being able to rep them but bringing two logistics doesn't make much sense in pve.

Two exceptions I can think of:
10/10 deds (but would you want noobs in frigates in them?).
fw plexes, I can see flying a pair of the new logistics frigates being a good strategy in the future for plexing gangs, it would even be funner and better training for a real pvp situation.

Other situations such as lvl 5's and lvl 4's which are where a lot of this noob brining in happens it seems to be a bad idea in.


We also have balance for lvl 4's vs 5's which affects me a lot as I love running lvl 5's. I've already thought up a couple of solid strategies to try out for new ai but will need to wait a few months for the required skills for those new strategies. There are also half a dozen other potential ways I could think of doing this but they'd be situational and often not as effective. If I was looking in terms of fun, difficulty or requiring to think lvl 5's might even be better in the future.

However I also have to look at isk/hour and risk/reward. Right now I can only barely justify the added risk of lvl 5's for the current fun factor over lvl 4's. In terms of isk/hour it's not all that much a difference, I've argued back and forth with a friend who runs lvl 4's in a mach over which brings in more isk/hour between our two choices. less risk ,no docking up to avoid pvp and ability to faction fit ships makes lvl 4's very profitable. It's pretty close in terms of isk/hour, I can manage my risk in lvl 5's decently but obviously it's much higher than lvl 4's and lvl 5's are just much more fun for me so I choose them.

After this patch I see lvl 5's losing a lot of their isk/hour potential that you could get by having tanks and pure dps ships. The new stragies that I'm thinking up will work but they are losing a large chunk of their isk/hour potential. I may be able to get similar to current isk/hour potential by dropping a carrier in them (even that I'll have to check) but the added risk for doing that is a hell of a lot.

Lvl 4's on the other hand will be easier after this patch, though slightly more annoying micro manage wise. dual boxing a pair of faction fit turret bs's who only use drones for anti frigate potential if the guns can't take em down before they get close. Switching targets just means the rat's can't focus fire and maybe the potential loss of some drones if I don't react fast enough.

tl;dr: this is a nerf to lvl 5's adapting to this means moving out of low sec and back to lvl 4's for my missioning needs
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#259 - 2012-10-23 21:51:24 UTC
Bubanni wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:
There have been numerous questions about what, if anything, we are going to do about how this change will effect certain gameplay styles outside of running missions or ratting. Things like hunting ratters, ninja salvaging, and playing content with your new friends.

For the most part our stance is that we believe you will adapt and find a way to do it. In some cases this may mean increasing the barrier to entry, but we have already seen players coming up with new ways to do the same stuff.

We do have a concern about the ability for experienced players to bring new players along with them on content. We are also looking into this. What effect any changes we make here have on those other forms of gameplay is not entirely certain yet.

One of the things we are looking at is increasing how much threat you need to generate before the NPC switch. The specific case we want to look at solving is as I said an experienced player in a Tengu bringing a new player in a Rifter along. If that new player is doing very little damage we don't want all 15 frigates to suddenly decide he needs to die.

If what ever change we make to help mitigate that effects the other gameplay styles as well, then so be it. Our stance however is that those that want to will find a way to continue doing those other activities.


From what I understand from this, if someone lands next to someone ratting in 0.0 and tackles the him, the rats will not likely start shooting at the tackler, unless the tackler also started agressing the rats in some way


I tested what would happen if I were a Thrasher pilot with evil designs on a mission runner. The frigates liked shooting the Thrasher regardless of its behavior. I could sit there at zero velocity with no modules active and they would switch to me. The frigates especially liked shooting the Thrasher if the mission runner recalled drones for a few seconds. They really liked shooting the Thrasher whenever it pointed the mission runner (that got me tackled and webbed by the NPCs). It seems like in the absence of multiple ships with similar sig radii to force it to calculate threat, the AI will just go after whatever matches the relevant sig radius without thinking about threat. So...unless the AI gets smarter about assessing threat, small things warping into missions will get shot up by frigates, be they friend or foe.
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#260 - 2012-10-23 21:53:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
DJ P0N-3 wrote:

I tested what would happen if I were a Thrasher pilot with evil designs on a mission runner. The frigates liked shooting the Thrasher regardless of its behavior. I could sit there at zero velocity with no modules active and they would switch to me. The frigates especially liked shooting the Thrasher if the mission runner recalled drones for a few seconds. They really liked shooting the Thrasher whenever it pointed the mission runner (that got me tackled and webbed by the NPCs). It seems like in the absence of multiple ships with similar sig radii to force it to calculate threat, the AI will just go after whatever matches the relevant sig radius without thinking about threat. So...unless the AI gets smarter about assessing threat, small things warping into missions will get shot up by frigates, be they friend or foe.


This is currently considered acceptable by the team working on the AI and it's entirely due to signature radius being prioritized over threat from what I can tell. This will absolutely cripple small gangs or solo players that prey on ratters.