Test Server Feedback

Well that may be the answer, I don't use ewar.
This could also explain why I could not keep my logi alive in LEVEL 5 missions.
Perhaps an easy fix would be to make large weapons generate max threat much like ewar does now.
I have tried running with ewar modules but every time I tried it resulted in slower completion times. After all mission running is about isk/hour. At least for me. I need those ewar slots for tank as my rigs and lows are all damage mods. A BS with +1000 DPS will blow through missions a lot faster than a BS with 500 DPS, a bigger tank, and ewar.

P.S. you do know we are talking about the build on duality, With the new A.I. changes, not TQ or Buckingham right?

I don't know of many pve Domis that run TDs, but I could be wrong. I know with a target painter on a rattler, that it didn't seem to count as EWAR, and the drones still popped the drones. Again, seems the RR afk Domis will still have the perfect setup, while people actually at the keyboard trying to increase DPS will suffer.

This still doesn't even take into account the people running level 1s and 2s that can't afford to drop tank for EWAR just to keep their drones alive. They'll simply move to gunboats because it'll be less hassle. I don't think any changes that suggest moving to a different class of ships is a great change.

And that is the part that all these propagandists quietly ignore when spouting how "enjoyable" and "easy" it is to fool the AI: The simple fact that to fit ewar in a mid either hugely gimps the tank of a shield boat, or in some cases removes the cap stability of an armour boat.

Plus, very very few boats can afford the additional cap required when perma-running a remote rep in the highs.
ANYTHING that lowers the performance of a mission / plex boat is a nerf against the income generation, and in many cases, it is impossible to alter the fit.

Oh, and for the record, the test window this past weekend was valueless.
When I was able in an Ishtar to run 5 missions and not have my heavies targeted once, while using my current Ishtar fit, with no ewar, no rr....well, that means the AI is garbage, and invalidates any testing that was done, regardless of how much the NPC's were insta-popping my lights.

If Fox Four has to take the AI back to the drawing board to fix the issue of heavies being ignored, does anyone rational (that precludes the troll Tippia) think that the just-tested AI's affinity for light drones won't also be affected?

Some of the comments I have read make me think many of the players supporting this change have not actually tested it. I agree 100% that modifying the code to "fix" the argo issues with large drones will change the balance already tested.

FOX FOUR said her self that she alternates testing between a character will all level 5 skills and one with only skills added she needs. But I expect that other alt still has all drone skills at 5 as those are "needed" to function with this new A.I. If she is able to run missions efficiently with not losing any drones, she must have either max skills or a gimped agro fit that will take far to long to complete the missions. It can not be balanced to high end drone skills as most mission runners do not have these skills. My main combat toon has over 40 mil SP and still has most drone support skills at 3-4. Drones are way to important in this game to need all the skills to 5 before they become viable.

In my experience most mission runners are obsessed with isk/hour while running missions. If this patch means they need to spend twice as long on each mission to run it safely, due to this huge nerf to drones (intended or not it is a nerf). Regardless if you can adapt your tactics to over come this change, If it takes twice as long to run the missions then that effectively cuts isk/hour in half. Which is a huge nerf to mission runners. This will cause a massive uproar if it goes live.

Every thing else FOX FOUR has done is amazing. She seems to be more involved in communicating with the community than any other developer. The changes to the market have been great. Many have been waiting a long time for some of these changes. It just seems this new A.I. has FOX FOUR so excited about adding something huge to the game, that the impact it will have beyond the focus of the update is being ignored. This is a perfect example of how game changing updates can go so wrong. A bad update is never intended to have the negative impact that it does. It is usually the result of significant variables being over looked or dismissed on the opinion that they are outside of the focus for that update.

I hate to bring it up again, but when the S.O.E. developers brought the N.G.E. into SWG it was in response to a director that wanted to target a younger audience who they felt were upset they could not start the game as a Jedi. The character development and crafting system was complex and hard to master, making the game have a steep learning curve. When they eliminated these things the game took a major dive losing 80% of its subscriptions.

EVE on the other hand seems to have been far more carefully manipulated to make it easier for new players to get a foot hold without breaking the game for the veterans. But an update like changing the general A.I. of all the NPC's in the game will impact the entire game. New players that can barely finish missions now will be lost and not know how to adapt. Veteran players that lose billions of isk worth of ships before finding a new tactic or find their isk/hour income from missions or ratting cut by 50% from what it was will be equally frustrated. And all players across the board will not be happy about their income being nerfed yet again, regardless if it is the result of not being able to rat or run missions at the level they could before the nerf.

Saying players will simply need to adapt is the wrong answer. That is like saying people living in North America will simply need to accept that gas will be over $6 a gallon by X-mas. The only difference is, in the real world there is really nothing they can do about it. But in a game world like EVE, they do not have to just accept it. The game is recreation, for enjoyment. If you stop enjoying it, well that level of frustration will almost always end up in a loss of subscriptions.

Yes. It's not new, by the way. It's been around for three years and have been well mapped out. It's just the application that is new.

Ditch a hardener, fit a TP. Ditch nothing, fit a nos.

I.e. not particularly, especially since doing them quickly means you're not going for total wipeout anyway and can leave small crap like irrelevant frigs in the field.

You mean those missions where the rats are irrelevant? Yes, I'm sure the new rat AI will make a huge difference there.

Ok, so your skills need a bit of improvement. That doesn't mean that you won't be able to do them while exchanging one module, especially not if you're in a Raven where you get free slots as it is. But no, your completion times will not double unless you're already doing them wrong and/or fitting your ship improperly.

This change will require you to pay attention a bit more, to your ship, to the rats and yes, to your drones. The old guides and strategies along the lines of “pull everything, go afk” will need updating, but once the bad habits have gone away, the speed will be the same.

Respect.

CCP this is a bad change and a definite nerf to mission runners. Personally it does not really seem logical to have the AI killing the drones since this really messes up the balance in missions for drone boats of all sizes.

Having said that it is clear that this is a CCP dev pet project. I would just like to point out the last pet project "Incarna" rolled out despite the serious warnings about real issues players had with it did not fair well.

CCP you need to shut off your personal pet project desires, stop listening to people that obviously have not tested the new mission AI and start listening to the regular mission runners that have tested this AI like Bugsy VanHalen.

Fail to do so at your own peril.

It's the same AI, set to be less aggressive in their target picking and without any abilities to support each other. The tricks to make drones safe from this AI template work the same as with the pre-existing templates.

You have enough tank as it is and you should have more than enough CPU. If you don't, you've wasted SP on stuff that doesn't matter. 40M SP sounds nice, but means absolutely nothing. My guess is that you need to bump that Missile Rigging skill up a bit (and maybe Weapon Upgrades as well). Going by your description of the fit, you should have at least 45tf left, which is plenty for a heavy nos.

Likewise, if the ~1k mission-specific tanks I'm look at here aren't good enough for you, you are either not managing your aggro or your skills are too low to actually generating that tank, in which case we're back to the suspicion of misplaced SP. Of course, I'd question the use of a Raven to begin with, but I suppose it's still decent enough and with the missile buffs, it might gain back some of its former glory…

Nah. Those are the simple ones. The actually hard ones only require a single ship to die at the end of a long sequence of spawns, and the difficult part is to get to them without being overwhelmed by all the ships you need to trigger to get there.

What about it? It's almost entirely about damage output against large ships — your tank means pretty much nothing. This AI alternation makes next to no difference.

Then you're not following my advice, since I'm not suggesting anything that will (or, hell, even can) reduce your completion time. Completion is a function of damage output; damage output remains the same…

Having not tested in anything but a Rattlesnake, I can't say I noticed improvement. That being the case I must ask, what was better?

What actually changed to make it more engaging? Was it the ship/fit? The way you flew? Specific actions you took? More precaution in managing drones?

Genuinely curious.

Interesting, going to need to test in a gunboat next time. I anticipated no tangible changes as I run missions solo.

Edit: Guess I'm going to have to get back on Friday, but can someone please help me by explaining what other behaviors than target switching one might be looking for to see how this has changed them?