These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

NPC AI hurting solo pvp.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Roderick Grey
Koenigsbergers
#161 - 2013-02-28 18:27:45 UTC
Sol Weinstein wrote:
This again? Stop posting the same idea weeks later. Poor way to campaign your poor idea.

Adapt to the changes in the NPC AI, or don't. Your choice.

Thank you.


it's the same thread, it just keeps getting necro'd.

But thanks again for your useless feed back.

"Guys I dislike this change let's discuss it"

"No, deal with it"

“We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.” - Special needs division of Fcon.
Doddy
Excidium.
#162 - 2013-02-28 19:54:54 UTC
Aglais wrote:
Roderick Grey wrote:

I don't have any dislike towards carebears at all, I myself do missions to support my pvp habit.

I'm saying that the NPC AI is flawed as the "threat" system isn't adequately taking into consideration who has aggression against what and is instead prioritizing targets who use Warp disruptors/scrams.


I dunno. That sounds like they're going after a higher priority target that is more dangerous to their well being because NPCs can and will warp off if an engagement goes poorly for them, much like players.


No they don't, normal belt rats only warp out when their timer tells them to, regardless of whether they are losing a fight or not. In fact even if you are disco'd and dying horribly to them having not damaged them in any way they will warp off. Officer and hauler spawns are different, they can warp out when you kill their escorts, but even then its not common. Deadspace rats won't warp out at all unless they are scripted to so for the purposes of a mission.
Doddy
Excidium.
#163 - 2013-02-28 20:08:13 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
Is it so hard to wait for the players to be done with the sites and then kill them?



If only there wasn't this local thingy that that gives you about 2 mins before even the slowest on the uptake pve ship docks, then you might be onto something. Or if the rats being there wasn't the sole reason for the player to be there. Or if rats appeared on d-scan (good old days) so you could see if how much help he had.

Its not just the damage difference that matters in any case, its the ewar, the neuting, the webbing, the impossibility of maintaining transversal on a target and on the bs spawn/sentries 60k away. Hell if the rats all took the opportunity to escape and despawned (like they would) and didn't help either side that would be fine, or if they treated both capsuleer ships as hostile and shot both or randomized between either. As it is it is just dumb. They will defend 5 bs that have been slaughtering their fellows for hours and are assaulting their "provincial headquarters" or whatever against 1 dude in a cruiser ffs, how can you not see that is broken?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#164 - 2013-03-01 00:25:44 UTC
HazeInADaze wrote:
It is a bit much to expect a PvP ship to handle a pve site.

In most situations a combat pilot must jump deep into hostile space to a densely populated cluster and then find, tackle, and destroy a heavily tanked ship while taking fire from the entire complex plus the PvE ship. So you need a ship with a heavy tank, an ability to avoid other combat fleets, and enough DPS to kill a ship that has the ability to tank an entire complex.

The risk of PvE has always been other pilots killing you. Now, with the exception of bridge fleets, there is no really successful way to engage a PvE ship without a tonne of luck. And before all these changes, back when ratting was done in a belt, an alert PvE pilot was almost completely uncatchable.



You say it's a bit much? Yet this is exactly what you want the PvE ship to do. The risk of PvE is supposed to be the Environment killing you. PvP is the activity that is supposed to be other pilots killing you. EVE is built on the premise that PvP can be nonconsensual, that you can force another pilot to fight you any time you can catch them. The game is ludicriously loaded in favor of a PvP specialized fit winning any engagement against one fit for PvE, unless the PvE pilot simply *Stops Playing*. That is currently their only defense. You can hardly complain about any PvP you might encounter on the way, everyone is subject to nonconsensual PvP.

I submit that if a pilot wants to take his ship into an area with heavy PvE interaction, then that pilot should fit his ship for those conditions. It was unbalanced that the ganker could completely ignore the environmental conditions he was fighting in, unless he chose to use it to his advantage to kill his target for him. Now both ships must contend with the environment. I agree the AI is not working properly in this regard since the whole room tends to shift at one time, but even that's not too out of line as the time it would stay on the new pilot is limited unless he is doing something the AI finds offensive, like using Logistics or Ewar.





Doddy wrote:
Its not just the damage difference that matters in any case, its the ewar, the neuting, the webbing, the impossibility of maintaining transversal on a target and on the bs spawn/sentries 60k away. Hell if the rats all took the opportunity to escape and despawned (like they would) and didn't help either side that would be fine, or if they treated both capsuleer ships as hostile and shot both or randomized between either. As it is it is just dumb. They will defend 5 bs that have been slaughtering their fellows for hours and are assaulting their "provincial headquarters" or whatever against 1 dude in a cruiser ffs, how can you not see that is broken?


Yet again, this is why it is balanced. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the PvE pilot has to contend with NPC Ewar, CapWar, Webbing, and transversal on multiple ships/drones then so should everyone else. Gankers like to pretend like the PvE guy had a choice about he didn't fit for PvP when his intended activity was PvE--- and it gave the gankers a stupidly unbalanced advantage in any engagement between them. It is not logical in any way that the ganker should be able to simply ignore everything but the one guy he wants to kill. Rats are no bodies ally. They destroy ships without prejudice. If you come in an easily popped ship and start doing things they find offensive, you can expect a summary popping.

I should not be forced to stop playing my EVE just because some ganker wants to play his. I look foward to the day when PvP and PvE fits are compatable and there are options to just quiting for the evening because some pirates decided to take up residence in the system. This change, poorly implemented as it is, steps in the right direction. Combined with a suite of other changes and some tweaks to how the AI changes targets as a fleet this will make EVE a better game. I would be ecstatic if they put in a functioning faction system and diplomacy interface so that your standings actually did something and you could negotiate with the rat factions for safe passage or render assistance against a cap pilot massacreing them. Imagine if you could begin your evening hunt by stopping by the solar systems hidden Serpentis base and purchasing an hour pass in all their areas of interest (complexes, mission pockets, etc...).
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#165 - 2013-03-01 02:33:04 UTC
OP title should read "NPC AI hurting my cheap easy ganking of PvE fit mission runners"

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Roderick Grey
Koenigsbergers
#166 - 2013-03-01 04:06:17 UTC
Katran Luftschreck wrote:
OP title should read "NPC AI hurting my cheap easy ganking of PvE fit mission runners"


Didn't mention missions at all.

But thanks for your contribution.

“We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.” - Special needs division of Fcon.
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#167 - 2013-03-01 04:19:22 UTC
Cheap ganking of belt ratters, then. Semantics, really. You enjoy taking your PvP fit ship and ganking PvE ships when they're already engaged (and weakened) by NPC AI ships. It's fun and easy and a great way to bloat your killboard with less effort. And I can applaud that sense of ruthless efficiency.

But now NPC AI attack everyone equally and you're whining about it. That's what I can't get behind. Simply by having a PvP ship and ambushing PvE ships you already have the upper hand. A great dead of an upper hand, in fact. Is having a few measly belt rats switching their aggro to you enough to really nullify that advantage? Is it enough to keep you from winning a fight that's already so heavily stacked in your favor to begin with?

That's what makes my perception of your methods go from "underhanded yet very clever strategy" to "total bully/wimp complex." If it's so dang hard to deal with belt rats then, I dunno, fit a cloak or something and wait until your PvE victim clears them all out for you first. Get a stealth bomber and blow them all up at once or something. Or do you honestly need them alive to help do your gank for you?

Seriously, compared to typical PvP in lowsec (I'm assuming you're in lowsec) the incoming DPS of couple of belt rats should be like a mosquito bite on an elephant.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
Roderick Grey
Koenigsbergers
#168 - 2013-03-01 04:30:49 UTC
They don't attack everyone equally that's the whole point, they prioritize those that use a Warp scramblers and other forms of ewar akin to pvp.

You point a Carrier in a stealth bomber the rats will switch to you (Not that you could solo a carrier anyway, but you get the point.)

And no, I'm not a lowsec resident.

“We could learn a lot from crayons; some are sharp, some are pretty, some are dull, while others bright, some have weird names, but they all have learned to live together in the same box.” - Special needs division of Fcon.
Azrael Dinn
Imperial Mechanics
#169 - 2013-03-01 06:30:19 UTC
Roderick Grey wrote:
Having to run from ratting tengus and drakes because the rats have switched to you is a terrible feeling.

I think CCP should change the aggression mechanics so that players attacking them take priority over others. I mean, how is attacking the ship that's killing the ship that's attacking you make any sense?

I think CCP should make it the mechanics work like this:

A drake warps into a belt and gains priority 2 aggression from the rats.

The drake attacks one of the rats granting it priority 1 aggression.

The drake gets it's drones out and attacks a frigate rat with them, the drones now have priority 1 aggression aswell, allowing NPC AI to switch in-between their desired targets.

A Cynabal enters the belt and attacks the Drake and gains priority 2 aggression from the rats.

The rats continue attacking the drake, as the drake has type 1 aggression.

The drake dies, the rats switch to the Cynabal as there are no priority 1 targets on field.


What the... are you actualy crying about rats that shoot at you and your pvp is abit harder?

After centuries of debating and justifying... Break Cloaks tm
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#170 - 2013-03-01 15:14:00 UTC
Roderick Grey wrote:
They don't attack everyone equally that's the whole point, they prioritize those that use a Warp scramblers and other forms of ewar akin to pvp.

You point a Carrier in a stealth bomber the rats will switch to you (Not that you could solo a carrier anyway, but you get the point.)

And no, I'm not a lowsec resident.



They do attack everyone equally, using the same rules. The PvE target you are trying to kill does not use those kinds of Ewar because he is dealing with rats, and so takes appropriate measures. They respond much the same way to logistics.

You want to engage pilots in a PvE setting, deal with rats. Very simple and balanced. The only broken aspect as far as the target switching is concerned is when they do it to simply showing up or decloaking. You should not get full room aggro for just warping in. Once you start doing things the NPC's find offensive, like Ewar or Logisitics, then you can expect to get all the aggro you have earned. If you intend to use those sorts of modules around NPC's, I suggest you fly an appropriate ship and fit to handle the challenges of the situation.
DSpite Culhach
#171 - 2013-03-08 16:28:32 UTC
This is purely aimed at how I have seen the AI working, normal missions by the way.

I don't know if you can call an AI what seems to be a rather linear scripted sequence. I'd refer to it as an AI if it could at least cheat and scan your ship to figure out which target they can take out faster for example, but all the switching seems to be on some rather black and white coded rules.

For example, two ships in mission, we let an aligned shield tanker go into armour and they still switched. In fact, they seem to just switch at regular intervals, which in fact made it easier. We tried messing with distances, yet they still seem to try shooting ships they obviously know they can't hit ... the list goes on.

We only did limited tests, but they seem to point at the old AI with just target switching behaviour. I have had them stop shooting sentries I abandoned 30 KM away just to retarget me firing missiles, I mean, I'd expected them to finish off a half dead sentry group. After I pulled all the NPC's back to me, I connected back to the sentries and started firing again, only 1 got killed.

Personally, if I was in a warzone with some lone hero guy wiping out my group and someone else we didn't know started a fight with him, I'd get the hell out, just in case they decide to pick on us again once they settle their own differences. I'm not saying that's how it should work, but I am all for keeping the game a little unpredictable. Every time I find a new NPC mechanic that I can duplicate easily I get a little annoyed.

Completely ignoring a new ship on grid is too extreme. All targeting the new ship has the same problem. I think it needs more work.

I apparently have no idea what I'm doing.