These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A counter to NPC aggro switching in PVP situations

Author
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#21 - 2014-09-29 23:14:31 UTC

While rat aggro can be annoying, I find it questionable that the NPC aggro is the reason for your distress if you're hunting Ishtars in a solo stealth bomber.

I also don't have an issue with NPC aggro, although I'd figure the NPC's would generally prioritize heavy dps ships over warp scramblers.
Mag's
Azn Empire
#22 - 2014-09-29 23:58:16 UTC
At this point in time, you should have learned to deal with it tbh. I think it was a good change.

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#23 - 2014-09-30 01:05:14 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field?

They put pressure on the targets tank , making it much easier to break than otherwise.

I hear good things about the proteus op, maby look at a cloaked blaster gank boat...


And hear we have the basics of the issue, he wants the rats to be able to do a lot of the damage to the target for him while he moves around totally free of any damage other than that the target may send his way. This change to the NPC AI was one of the best things that CCP ever did to balance the game between gankers and their targets. Now both ganker and target must be able to tank the damage if they want to stay around, heck they may even need to shoot rats so they can stay in the pocket. I would say this is working as intended.
Inadequate Suppression
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2014-09-30 01:47:46 UTC
This change would make me very happy.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#25 - 2014-09-30 08:39:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
yes, NPC switching targets in pvp encounters was a very bad change and should be reverted by CCP soon.

Ohkewl wrote:
so in short, you want risk free ratter ganking?

Ratter has intel channels, his alliance/corp buddies, the local channel on his side, so he really shouldn't
have the NPCs protecting him as well, he's mass murdering for hours/days/weeks/months/years. If he's still getting
caught despite of all those aids he deserves to loose his ship.

btw. hunting ratters is everything but risk free.


Retribution NPC AI change removed stealth bombers as ratter hunting vessels.
Surely, ratters rejoiced, since you now require a heavier ship for same thing as you need to tank the ratter + NPC,
which is in turn a lot easier to bait or catch in a gate camp consequently meaning more safety for ratters in 0.0 regions.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field?

lmao
I guess you never tried to roam 0.0, did you?
There is no time to wait, as a neutral appears in local, most will be warping to station or POS if not even much earlier.
KatanTharkay
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-09-30 09:03:29 UTC  |  Edited by: KatanTharkay
Marc Durant wrote:
The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.

So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way.

No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
Transgress
#27 - 2014-09-30 09:11:46 UTC
KatanTharkay wrote:
Marc Durant wrote:
The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.

So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way.

No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code.

actually i remember this being the stated reason for it. you could keep agro on something the rats couldn't hit under the right circumstances.
KatanTharkay
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-09-30 09:26:50 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
KatanTharkay wrote:
Marc Durant wrote:
The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.

So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way.

No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code.

actually i remember this being the stated reason for it. you could keep agro on something the rats couldn't hit under the right circumstances.


Quoting from Apocrypha devblog: "One of the things we disliked about the current AI system is that the first player ship in range of a NPC squad would become the focus of the attacks for the entire squad. The squad would never deviate from that attack pattern. We have changed this as well. When an encounter starts, the NPC will individually evaluate what is known of the opponent and target the appropriate opponent. As the fight evolves, the NPC will watch what players are doing and, based on several criteria, will decide if some or all of the NPCs should change their targets.
In very basic terms: modules and weapons generate threat; as the threat goes up and down the NPCs will change targets and allocate secondary targets."

You can also read this devblog. There is absolutely no reference to what you said as being intended. Like I said before, this is just a side effect.
Marc Durant
#29 - 2014-09-30 14:36:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Marc Durant
KatanTharkay wrote:
Marc Durant wrote:
The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.

So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way.

No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code.



There have been an awful lot of "side effects" the past few years that, just by sheer accident, had a rather positive use for carebears. Don't kid yourself, when CCP said/says "we want more subscribers" what they forgot to add is "so we'll adapt the game to the biggest player pool; the carebears".

KatanTharkay wrote:
You can also read this devblog. There is absolutely no reference to what you said as being intended. Like I said before, this is just a side effect.


Yes, they will of course openly state to their hardcore customers that they're changing focus. Marketing speak has always been 100% honest and open about a company's motivation.

Yes, yes I am. Thanks for noticing.

KatanTharkay
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-09-30 14:59:15 UTC  |  Edited by: KatanTharkay
Marc Durant wrote:
KatanTharkay wrote:
Marc Durant wrote:
The OP fails to realise that npcs now switching to aggressors was partly the reason for the changes in the first place, there have been tons of seemingly "neutral" changes that actually completely changed how stuff works, all for the betterment of the pve grind clowns.

So they won't change a thing, they wanted it this way.

No, this change was made in order to stop the one ship that tanks and the others repp or do full damage gameplay that we had before the new AI implementation. The current switch to everything on the grid of the mentally challenged AI is just a side effect of the quick & dirty programming. Ergo the unwillingness of CCP to review that code.



There have been an awful lot of "side effects" the past few years that, just by sheer accident, had a rather positive use for carebears. Don't kid yourself, when CCP said/says "we want more subscribers" what they forgot to add is "so we'll adapt the game to the biggest player pool; the carebears".

KatanTharkay wrote:
You can also read this devblog. There is absolutely no reference to what you said as being intended. Like I said before, this is just a side effect.


Yes, they will of course openly state to their hardcore customers that they're changing focus. Marketing speak has always been 100% honest and open about a company's motivation.

Ohhh, so CCP secretly helped the carebears. Sweet Jezuz!
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#31 - 2014-09-30 15:09:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
at least they ignored peoples feedback on the announced changes.
I too, among others, voiced those exact concerns about pvp aspects of the game being severely affected - but noone listened, so it must've been intentional, or CCP make those feedback threads for troll or sheer politeness.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2014-09-30 15:32:00 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:


Frostys Virpio wrote:
Why can't you wait for the NPC to be dead before uncloaking or at least for less to be on the field?

lmao
I guess you never tried to roam 0.0, did you?
There is no time to wait, as a neutral appears in local, most will be warping to station or POS if not even much earlier.


The OP mention uncloaking so I assume he had to hunt his target and had the time to slowboat into point range. How damn long does it take to align an Ishtar out and warp? I know some people will run instantly when they see a neut/red in local but FFS if you can uncloak on your enemy, he was definitely not of the type to insta-run.
KatanTharkay
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2014-09-30 16:16:10 UTC  |  Edited by: KatanTharkay
The Sleeper AI does not distinguish between different players, it treats all players ships on grid equally. It assesses the threat for every new ship on grid and acts accordingly. If you would put a condition like:

"if player ship is aggressing NPC & another ship is shooting the aggressing ship then do not attack that ship"

that would be highly exploitable - fit a civilian gun on your logistics and never get NPC aggro. A multiple set of conditions that would basically check for "outgoing damage on ship > outgoing buffs on ship" would need constant loop checking and it would heavily load the servers.

So this is not a secret CCP plot to help carebears and changing how the NPC AI behaves would mean changing the entire code and this will not happen any time soon.
Doddy
Excidium.
#34 - 2014-09-30 16:33:38 UTC
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
FT Diomedes wrote:


Option 4: CCP could fix NPC AI so that NPC's can recognize that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend," at least temporarily.


That's the same as saying Russia and ISIS are friends because they both hate the US


Well that makes more sense than how it is now. ISIS being attacked by the US, then Russians come along and attack the US so ISIS immediately stops attacking the US and attacks the Russians instead.....
Doddy
Excidium.
#35 - 2014-09-30 16:45:26 UTC
KatanTharkay wrote:
The Sleeper AI does not distinguish between different players, it treats all players ships on grid equally. It assesses the threat for every new ship on grid and acts accordingly. If you would put a condition like:

"if player ship is aggressing NPC & another ship is shooting the aggressing ship then do not attack that ship"

that would be highly exploitable - fit a civilian gun on your logistics and never get NPC aggro. A multiple set of conditions that would basically check for "outgoing damage on ship > outgoing buffs on ship" would need constant loop checking and it would heavily load the servers.

So this is not a secret CCP plot to help carebears and changing how the NPC AI behaves would mean changing the entire code and this will not happen any time soon.


LOL

The sleeper AI sees ewar as a threat. The pvper must use a disruptor, the ratter uses no ewar (well usually, i guess npcers using tps may be at a disadvantage). This means the NPCs will always see the pvper as a threat over the ratter, despite the fact the warp disruption provides no actual threat to the npcs. I have never ever attacked a ratter and not had the npcs switch. Even when you can avoid their damage their ewar will ruin the fight most times, getting in a jam or neuting a point off so the ratter can bail.

If it wasn't a stealth CCP plot they would simply have excluded warp disruption from the threat matrix and/or toned down the new threat switch (which is dumb in any case).

I suspect some ccp dev got his navypoc killed by a hound one day and threw a hissy fit.
KatanTharkay
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#36 - 2014-09-30 17:25:42 UTC  |  Edited by: KatanTharkay
Doddy wrote:
KatanTharkay wrote:
The Sleeper AI does not distinguish between different players, it treats all players ships on grid equally. It assesses the threat for every new ship on grid and acts accordingly. If you would put a condition like:

"if player ship is aggressing NPC & another ship is shooting the aggressing ship then do not attack that ship"

that would be highly exploitable - fit a civilian gun on your logistics and never get NPC aggro. A multiple set of conditions that would basically check for "outgoing damage on ship > outgoing buffs on ship" would need constant loop checking and it would heavily load the servers.

So this is not a secret CCP plot to help carebears and changing how the NPC AI behaves would mean changing the entire code and this will not happen any time soon.


LOL

The sleeper AI sees ewar as a threat. The pvper must use a disruptor, the ratter uses no ewar (well usually, i guess npcers using tps may be at a disadvantage). This means the NPCs will always see the pvper as a threat over the ratter, despite the fact the warp disruption provides no actual threat to the npcs. I have never ever attacked a ratter and not had the npcs switch. Even when you can avoid their damage their ewar will ruin the fight most times, getting in a jam or neuting a point off so the ratter can bail.

If it wasn't a stealth CCP plot they would simply have excluded warp disruption from the threat matrix and/or toned down the new threat switch (which is dumb in any case).

I suspect some ccp dev got his navypoc killed by a hound one day and threw a hissy fit.


Dude... For optimization reasons CCP AI checks for EW category, it doesn't check for modules individually, this requires less processing power. And EW is highest on AI check list, it makes no difference if you use a point, tracking disruptor, damps, webs or target painter, they are all treated the same. You know, for example you can jamm NPC's... Makes sense to be the highest priority check.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#37 - 2014-09-30 19:54:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenika
It's actually a very simple coding change. New ships to grid start at 0 threat (they don't appear to currently), and hostile modules activated only generate threat if they are directed at an NPC target (friendly modules, like remote repairs and cap transfers, still generate threat as normal). PvP actions instantly are threat-free.

I mean, if you're going from the standpoint of what was stated in the dev blog:

"When an encounter starts, the NPC will individually evaluate what is known of the opponent and target the appropriate opponent. As the fight evolves, the NPC will watch what players are doing and, based on several criteria, will decide if some or all of the NPCs should change their targets."

If you were fighting a hostile force, and another force jumped in and started attacking your enemy, you would not immediately swap targets and start attacking the new force. It's absolute tactical lunacy. Better to let them hash it out, and then kill whichever side wins, if necessary.

Now, I could see it being the case that once your gank target dies, the pirates proactively engage you, since capsuleers tend to slaughter them en masse, but they shouldn't, from a tactical standpoint, attack you unless you make a threatening gesture at them first. Attacking their target shouldn't generate threat.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2014-09-30 20:10:54 UTC
Daenika wrote:
It's actually a very simple coding change. New ships to grid start at 0 threat (they don't appear to currently), and hostile modules activated only generate threat if they are directed at an NPC target (friendly modules, like remote repairs and cap transfers, still generate threat as normal). PvP actions instantly are threat-free.

I mean, if you're going from the standpoint of what was stated in the dev blog:

"When an encounter starts, the NPC will individually evaluate what is known of the opponent and target the appropriate opponent. As the fight evolves, the NPC will watch what players are doing and, based on several criteria, will decide if some or all of the NPCs should change their targets."

If you were fighting a hostile force, and another force jumped in and started attacking your enemy, you would not immediately swap targets and start attacking the new force. It's absolute tactical lunacy. Better to let them hash it out, and then kill whichever side wins, if necessary.

Now, I could see it being the case that once your gank target dies, the pirates proactively engage you, since capsuleers tend to slaughter them en masse, but they shouldn't, from a tactical standpoint, attack you unless you make a threatening gesture at them first. Attacking their target shouldn't generate threat.


So I should be able to sit inside of an anom since there is no threat generated?

The rats just see a target of opportunity in the form of the attacking player because he is usuaslly in a much easyer to destroy ship. They act like any capsuler would by making sure they get a KM before going down.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#39 - 2014-09-30 20:15:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The OP mention uncloaking so I assume he had to hunt his target and had the time to slowboat into point range. How damn long does it take to align an Ishtar out and warp? I know some people will run instantly when they see a neut/red in local but FFS if you can uncloak on your enemy, he was definitely not of the type to insta-run.


you didnt think about the chance he hasnt seen him on local yet?
Believe me, I've missed millions of kills while slowboating toward the bear cloaked as he realized me in local and warped off. This is a common situation.

KatanTharkay wrote:
The Sleeper AI does not distinguish between different players, it treats all players ships on grid equally. It assesses the threat for every new ship on grid and acts accordingly. If you would put a condition like:


whatever AI implementation it is, its obviously trash if its protecting the ratter, doesnt compute at all; after it killed a whole aspect of stealth bomber pvp. From me, plexers might use tank ships and farm plexes, they adopted anyways and keep doing it in a slightly different manner, doesnt make much of a difference from pve point of view.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#40 - 2014-09-30 20:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Daenika
Frostys Virpio wrote:
So I should be able to sit inside of an anom since there is no threat generated?


No...I direct you to this part of my comment:

Daenika wrote:
Now, I could see it being the case that once your gank target dies, the pirates proactively engage you, since capsuleers tend to slaughter them en masse


In other words, if you're the only target, you get shot, but if there are two targets, and one has attacked the NPCs while the other hasn't made a threatening gesture, the attacker should get aggro, especially if the one-that-hasn't-attacked is newer to the grid than the one that has.

Quote:
The rats just see a target of opportunity in the form of the attacking player because he is usuaslly in a much easyer to destroy ship. They act like any capsuler would by making sure they get a KM before going down.


On the contrary. If you're trying to destroy a hostile force, and protect your own, would you attack the target that is currently attacking you, and also receiving damage from another party, or would you attack the target has it NOT receiving damage from another party and is also not attacking you?

Tactically, it's lunacy to attack the latter. The former is much easier to destroy, and more of a threat to your forces as well.