These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Playing your characters like NPCs under your control

Author
chaosgrimm
Synth Tech
#61 - 2014-11-29 05:42:31 UTC
dont see how this wouldnt be pay to win...

Sure youve got ppl like goons who would have enough ingame isk to make single player controlled freighter-destroying fleets of destroyers, but still... the fact that if this were in place, somebody could spend RL cash, to amass a fleet or several fleets that instantly respond to their commands.... im mean... pay to win...

you might as well be like: damage = base * plex
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#62 - 2014-11-29 05:55:06 UTC
Hilarious, the whole thing. You fight well and are well spoken but give it time rain. That juvenile college idealism will wear off when your actually running businesses.

As to your proposition, no. If you can't be bothered to actually control those accounts, why should you derive fruits of their labor? People aren't multiboxing because that's how they like to play, we multibox because we enjoy the advantage and control. The means are irrelevent, active alternates are the most effective means of power multiplication to the player, which is the goal.

People like to play immersed and involved, but people like winning much more.

On a long enough timeline, the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero.

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#63 - 2014-11-29 06:51:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Rain6637
I'm ok with just playing space barbie, actually.

thanks, though, for the accusation of juvenile in particular. (running businesses. I like the sound of that)

One thing that comes to mind right now is something a friend of mine told me, who works at Riot. The main requirement for anyone who wants to work at Riot is that they play. A lot of harsh words and accusations are thrown around here, but I can't help thinking that's a big part of the issue. That devs don't play enough. And if they did, in playstyles that match the player base, I wouldn't sound like the crazy one by challenging this ... status quo. the elephant in the room. That multiboxing is a big part of EVE, and it deserves some attention, some streamlining.

I can't think of any other games where you can play the way a lot of us do, with multiple characters at a time. I'm not exaggerating when I say it's a part of EVE's identity as a game... am I? So why isn't it addressed with things that would allow players to do it better, even at the cost of reduced efficiency (no drugs, no heat, no local reps, even).

Don't you think it's irresponsible, or neglectful, or odd that multiple accounts are sold to players with almost no integration? What corollaries do you know of, where sales and development of a game are so disconnected?

Am I imagining things, or does multiboxing have a stigma, that even CCP would rather not talk about?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#64 - 2014-11-29 08:26:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Rain6637 wrote:
One thing that comes to mind right now is something a friend of mine told me, who works at Riot. The main requirement for anyone who wants to work at Riot is that they play. A lot of harsh words and accusations are thrown around here, but I can't help thinking that's a big part of the issue. That devs don't play enough. And if they did, in playstyles that match the player base, I wouldn't sound like the crazy one by challenging this ... status quo. the elephant in the room. That multiboxing is a big part of EVE, and it deserves some attention, some streamlining.

What (intentionally not which) play style are you referring to? The way Null sec ratters play? The FW way? The High sec mission runners? The Low sec mission runners? The Null sec mission runners? The solo PVPers? The High sec wardeccers? The Null sec renters? The Null sec station spinners/F1 drones? The Industrialists in High sec? Industrialists in Low/Null sec? Corp leader? Alliance leader? Spy? Logistics pilots? Material procurement for Null sec aka the Logistics guys? The market manipulator? The market pro trader? The Newbie? The vet? ...

There's only so many ways (is the plural even justified) to play Riot games, but EVE has tons of ways to play the game. Some are niche, some are uses by broad parts of the community. Hence: which play style should they prefer or play or start with? And if they chose a couple, how would decisions based on that limited perspective affect the other play styles?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#65 - 2014-11-29 08:31:21 UTC
after playing in a wormhole for 6 months, Soundwave thought corp bookmarks were the best idea ever. late 2011.
Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2014-11-29 09:02:45 UTC
I didn't mean to offend by what I inferred. And a am in full agreement with your assertion that the devs need to play their game more. Check out falcon if you like, he actually does.

However there is an inconsistency in your second paragraph. "Allow players to do it better, even at the cost of reduced efficiency." If it is less efficient, by most metrics would not be better. Easier I could see, but there in lies the problem.

Multiboxing can result in a massive expansion of capabilities to the player. The trade off is the split attention between those clients, and the challenges of controlling them all with precision. A challenge enough for third party programs to be created and distributed to mitigate this challenge. The demand proves that the trade off works, and I would feel it irresponsible of CCP to mitigate that trade off.

If you would like an example of disconnected sales and development quality, EA Games. There are plenty of others, but if you head to game stop and pick up an Xbox title your propably holding a tangable example. (Lets sell 80% of the game for $60 and the other %20 as dlc on realease day, seem familiar?)

On a long enough timeline, the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero.

Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#67 - 2014-11-29 09:21:30 UTC
Yeah, the word "better" struck me as ambiguous maybe. I should have said 'more enjoyable.' You know, an AI mode that isn't as lightning fast or as good as a ship that is micromanaged, but makes fielding multiple characters more pleasant.

My little heroes, or something.

Isn't there a better example of development disparity than a console game whose lifespan is a year? Console games have to meet launch deadlines, but EVE had ten years of multiple account sales.

(no offense taken.)
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2014-11-29 09:56:37 UTC
Evora Pirkibo wrote:
However there is an inconsistency in your second paragraph. "Allow players to do it better, even at the cost of reduced efficiency." If it is less efficient, by most metrics would not be better.

Efficiency typically refers only to the resource costs associated with the activity. When you get less total activity accomplished for the same amount of activity completed, your actions are less efficient. But there are many ways in which less efficiency can come with an improvement, one of the simplest and most obvious being when you can glean more total activity for person-hours invested. So it can be less efficient for some resources and more efficient for others.

I believe the proposal was to give players a way to spend more ISK per character-hour in order to glean more character-hours per player-hour.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Evora Pirkibo
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2014-11-29 10:16:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Evora Pirkibo
As in more relatable example, Blizzard jumps to mind. Unfortunately I'm out of town on business and cannot access my steam library to give a more comprehensive list at this time. And older console games with more development passion still have yet to die. The lifespan of a year or less is unfortunately common (and by no means limited to console games), but a pattern more common in the past 7 years than the last, and there has been nothing but exponential expansion of the gaming industry's revenue.

I adamantly believe the very hasstle and challenge of actively controlling those additional accounts is the appropriate trade off for the benefits they pose. And that attention is in and of itself the balancing factor. I support attention as a balancing factor as it requires players instead of ai. As the lifeblood of this game is it's social interaction and player metriculation creating a lush dynamic environment for its playerbase, features like ai undermine the need for players to work together.

Edit: Time is a reasource. If you are accomplishing more even if each character independantly was less efficient than if actively played, the net efficiency of your player hours has increased.

I wish I could quote easily, but phone formatting...

On a long enough timeline, the life expectancy of everyone drops to zero.

Corraidhin Farsaidh
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#70 - 2014-11-29 10:50:13 UTC
Definitely no to AI control for your alts but +1 to being allowed to log in the alts and multibox them whether as seperate characters or via MCT. I'd also be fine with alt switching between mct chars without logout/login for those who run industry/science chars though maybe only one of these alts should be allowed to undock at once to avoid promoting afk flying (its a valid option if you accept the risk but shouldn't be promoted).
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#71 - 2014-12-01 16:02:13 UTC
Evora Pirkibo wrote:
I didn't mean to offend by what I inferred. And a am in full agreement with your assertion that the devs need to play their game more. Check out falcon if you like, he actually does.

However there is an inconsistency in your second paragraph. "Allow players to do it better, even at the cost of reduced efficiency." If it is less efficient, by most metrics would not be better. Easier I could see, but there in lies the problem.

Multiboxing can result in a massive expansion of capabilities to the player. The trade off is the split attention between those clients, and the challenges of controlling them all with precision. A challenge enough for third party programs to be created and distributed to mitigate this challenge. The demand proves that the trade off works, and I would feel it irresponsible of CCP to mitigate that trade off.

If you would like an example of disconnected sales and development quality, EA Games. There are plenty of others, but if you head to game stop and pick up an Xbox title your propably holding a tangable example. (Lets sell 80% of the game for $60 and the other %20 as dlc on realease day, seem familiar?)

I believe that the trade off for multi-boxing in this manner, is that you begin to spread your attention across the activities of far more points of conflict than is normally done by single boxing.

Your group of pilots is reduced to a single minded blunt instrument, not capable of detailed individualized action as easily as separate players can accomplish.

Rather than tabbing between clients, which could be argued is unfairly biased towards players able to afford more expensive rigs, you are popping through menus for groups, sub groups, or even trying to micromanage individual pilots.
The more effort you can put into it, obviously the better your results.

If the AI potential is kept to a minimum, with controlled ships behaving the way drones do typically, then it should encourage players to not field more accounts than they can effectively manage, unless they want to risk losing their pilots en masse.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2014-12-01 16:40:43 UTC
You could also get friends to support you in your fleet instead of asking CCP to implement a new more complex version of Isboxer so you can fun a whole god damn fleet as a single player. You probably also want them to broadcast for reps when they get damaged so they can also respond to said automatic broadcast with automatic reps. Hey look guys, I can run a HQ incursion fleet from a cloaky hull broadcasting targets while being 100% sure no-one will ever forget to broadcast and no logi will ever lock + rep slower than supposed. You might have trouble programming a MTAC runner so you might have to do somethign by yourself in one type of site I guess...

Any proposition to automate the usage of alts should die before it is even proposed. You, the player, are supposed to play the game.

Remember when people though sentry assist was stupid because you could play the game AFK and still be useful in a fleet, well with that proposition, you don't even need the warm body to fly the ship to the fight's grid. The FC will command all the flying including bridge/gate jump.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#73 - 2014-12-01 17:04:13 UTC
Whoa whoa whoa ....!
Frostys Virpio wrote:
You could also get friends to support you in your fleet instead of asking CCP to implement a new more complex version of Isboxer so you can fun a whole god damn fleet as a single player. You probably also want them to broadcast for reps when they get damaged so they can also respond to said automatic broadcast with automatic reps. Hey look guys, I can run a HQ incursion fleet from a cloaky hull broadcasting targets while being 100% sure no-one will ever forget to broadcast and no logi will ever lock + rep slower than supposed. You might have trouble programming a MTAC runner so you might have to do somethign by yourself in one type of site I guess...

You are taking this idea farther than I have read being proposed, by a notably significant amount.

Health bars, (like a drone has), for shields armor and hull, that I could expect.

Expecting the ships to automatically communicate to each other, and respond as needed?
That is a whole other level, which I do not believe is being put forth here.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
Any proposition to automate the usage of alts should die before it is even proposed. You, the player, are supposed to play the game.

Remember when people though sentry assist was stupid because you could play the game AFK and still be useful in a fleet, well with that proposition, you don't even need the warm body to fly the ship to the fight's grid. The FC will command all the flying including bridge/gate jump.

Stretching the idea to include features which were not intended, just so you can then point out the idea goes too far by including them, I do not believe adds to this discussion.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#74 - 2014-12-01 18:37:03 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Whoa whoa whoa ....!
Frostys Virpio wrote:
You could also get friends to support you in your fleet instead of asking CCP to implement a new more complex version of Isboxer so you can fun a whole god damn fleet as a single player. You probably also want them to broadcast for reps when they get damaged so they can also respond to said automatic broadcast with automatic reps. Hey look guys, I can run a HQ incursion fleet from a cloaky hull broadcasting targets while being 100% sure no-one will ever forget to broadcast and no logi will ever lock + rep slower than supposed. You might have trouble programming a MTAC runner so you might have to do somethign by yourself in one type of site I guess...

You are taking this idea farther than I have read being proposed, by a notably significant amount.

Health bars, (like a drone has), for shields armor and hull, that I could expect.

Expecting the ships to automatically communicate to each other, and respond as needed?
That is a whole other level, which I do not believe is being put forth here.

Frostys Virpio wrote:
Any proposition to automate the usage of alts should die before it is even proposed. You, the player, are supposed to play the game.

Remember when people though sentry assist was stupid because you could play the game AFK and still be useful in a fleet, well with that proposition, you don't even need the warm body to fly the ship to the fight's grid. The FC will command all the flying including bridge/gate jump.

Stretching the idea to include features which were not intended, just so you can then point out the idea goes too far by including them, I do not believe adds to this discussion.


The OP mention it working in a fleet scenario and even ask for it to follow a chain of command according to fleet hierarchy. From that point, the NPC need to care for themselves as far as broadcast for reps go and logi NPC need to be able to follow such broadcast.

If those 2 points are not present, the fleet idea goes down. If they are, then a fleet just need a target caller as it is the only thing it's can't do by itself once on grid.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#75 - 2014-12-01 18:45:25 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The OP mention it working in a fleet scenario and even ask for it to follow a chain of command according to fleet hierarchy. From that point, the NPC need to care for themselves as far as broadcast for reps go and logi NPC need to be able to follow such broadcast.

If those 2 points are not present, the fleet idea goes down. If they are, then a fleet just need a target caller as it is the only thing it's can't do by itself once on grid.

Fleet scenario, perhaps as the closest analogy to explaining it, as I read the concept.

Using pull down menus to control individuals or designated groups, is very similar to a fleet's apparent behavior.
Common references already in existence being to warp ships in fleet, or control drones.

Before we condemn the OP as suggesting something that goes this far, I would question whether that is intended first.
Clearly there is some murkiness in the description, for us to see such radically different results from the idea.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#76 - 2014-12-01 19:31:15 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
The OP mention it working in a fleet scenario and even ask for it to follow a chain of command according to fleet hierarchy. From that point, the NPC need to care for themselves as far as broadcast for reps go and logi NPC need to be able to follow such broadcast.

If those 2 points are not present, the fleet idea goes down. If they are, then a fleet just need a target caller as it is the only thing it's can't do by itself once on grid.

Fleet scenario, perhaps as the closest analogy to explaining it, as I read the concept.

Using pull down menus to control individuals or designated groups, is very similar to a fleet's apparent behavior.
Common references already in existence being to warp ships in fleet, or control drones.

Before we condemn the OP as suggesting something that goes this far, I would question whether that is intended first.
Clearly there is some murkiness in the description, for us to see such radically different results from the idea.


It needs this according tot he OP:

Rain6637 wrote:
It would require a comprehensive input list, with enough functionality to fit and command an NPC alt without needing to open a separate client.

They'll respond to primaries, navigation commands, warps, and also manage remote reps.

You'd still need to open individual clients for things like skill management and market. But in all roles out in space, NPC alts will function as AI under your command.



Please CCP introduce Isboxer functionality natively in the game client so I can control a whole fleet all by myself and make sure you also make it error proof by making the ships respond more intelligently to target broadcast and rep broadcast because having human being in control leave room for errors. And since you are gonna work on it, also make it so if I get head shotted, my other character now get's controlled by someone else because since it was mostly controlled by the server and only responding to key chosen trigger, it won't really be bad if someone else in the fleet take control of them all. Sentry assist was stupid as hell but control of the whole ship being given to a single player is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#77 - 2014-12-01 20:18:01 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
It needs this according tot he OP:

Rain6637 wrote:
It would require a comprehensive input list, with enough functionality to fit and command an NPC alt without needing to open a separate client.

They'll respond to primaries, navigation commands, warps, and also manage remote reps.

You'd still need to open individual clients for things like skill management and market. But in all roles out in space, NPC alts will function as AI under your command.



Please CCP introduce Isboxer functionality natively in the game client so I can control a whole fleet all by myself and make sure you also make it error proof by making the ships respond more intelligently to target broadcast and rep broadcast because having human being in control leave room for errors. And since you are gonna work on it, also make it so if I get head shotted, my other character now get's controlled by someone else because since it was mostly controlled by the server and only responding to key chosen trigger, it won't really be bad if someone else in the fleet take control of them all. Sentry assist was stupid as hell but control of the whole ship being given to a single player is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better.

Ok, so object to that section, and make it clear it is that section which takes it too far.

Also, keep in mind:

1. Respond to primaries is a phrase that may require explanation, for clarity.
If you select a locked target, and right click your drones to attack it, you just had your drones respond to your primary.

2. Navigation commands, already in game for both fleet and drones. Expanding this to have the group play follow the leader is not really excessive, if done correctly.
(Your drones can return and orbit, but if you warp too fast they get left behind, etc)

3. That manage remote reps... not necessarily automate.
We have repair drones already, and I think it is rather perverse that they avoid repping their parent ship.
It is reasonable to point out that a player can visually see status bars indicating damage, and menu click a logi drone or ship to respond. It doesn't make the repping automatic, the player still had to pay attention and respond first.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-12-01 20:40:55 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ok, so object to that section, and make it clear it is that section which takes it too far.

Also, keep in mind:

1. Respond to primaries is a phrase that may require explanation, for clarity.
If you select a locked target, and right click your drones to attack it, you just had your drones respond to your primary.

2. Navigation commands, already in game for both fleet and drones. Expanding this to have the group play follow the leader is not really excessive, if done correctly.
(Your drones can return and orbit, but if you warp too fast they get left behind, etc)

3. That manage remote reps... not necessarily automate.
We have repair drones already, and I think it is rather perverse that they avoid repping their parent ship.
It is reasonable to point out that a player can visually see status bars indicating damage, and menu click a logi drone or ship to respond. It doesn't make the repping automatic, the player still had to pay attention and respond first.


1- The idea is to push this to player controlled ship. Well player "controlled" since you and the OP want an AI to do it insetad of a player... It still need to be able to lock a target by itself as it is not connected to your targeting systems like your drones are and then activate weapons. Handling reloads is necessary too in case of ammo swaps.

2- Application of prob mods and direction change would need to be implemented as currently, all that is available iirc is regroup forming a ball around you and fleet warps.

3- What if your fleet is over 15 players thus breaking the limit of watch list? No more hp bars so the ships have to broadcast in the same way current fleet have to. Integrating this "feature" remove one of the few reason to be at the keyboard during a fight and make a NPC controlled ship likely to be more efficient than a human being at the control.

Why are we trying to replace human players with AI?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#79 - 2014-12-01 20:51:05 UTC
chaosgrimm wrote:
dont see how this wouldnt be pay to win...

Sure youve got ppl like goons who would have enough ingame isk to make single player controlled freighter-destroying fleets of destroyers, but still... the fact that if this were in place, somebody could spend RL cash, to amass a fleet or several fleets that instantly respond to their commands.... im mean... pay to win...

you might as well be like: damage = base * plex


Why spend all those PLEX when your in-game friend can just subordinate their own too to you by exploding the "controlling" rookie frig so the control get's passed higher up in the fleet hierarchy?
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#80 - 2014-12-01 21:03:02 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

Ok, so object to that section, and make it clear it is that section which takes it too far.

Also, keep in mind:

1. Respond to primaries is a phrase that may require explanation, for clarity.
If you select a locked target, and right click your drones to attack it, you just had your drones respond to your primary.

2. Navigation commands, already in game for both fleet and drones. Expanding this to have the group play follow the leader is not really excessive, if done correctly.
(Your drones can return and orbit, but if you warp too fast they get left behind, etc)

3. That manage remote reps... not necessarily automate.
We have repair drones already, and I think it is rather perverse that they avoid repping their parent ship.
It is reasonable to point out that a player can visually see status bars indicating damage, and menu click a logi drone or ship to respond. It doesn't make the repping automatic, the player still had to pay attention and respond first.


1- The idea is to push this to player controlled ship. Well player "controlled" since you and the OP want an AI to do it insetad of a player... It still need to be able to lock a target by itself as it is not connected to your targeting systems like your drones are and then activate weapons. Handling reloads is necessary too in case of ammo swaps.

2- Application of prob mods and direction change would need to be implemented as currently, all that is available iirc is regroup forming a ball around you and fleet warps.

3- What if your fleet is over 15 players thus breaking the limit of watch list? No more hp bars so the ships have to broadcast in the same way current fleet have to. Integrating this "feature" remove one of the few reason to be at the keyboard during a fight and make a NPC controlled ship likely to be more efficient than a human being at the control.

Why are we trying to replace human players with AI?


1. How drones handle targeting is not directly explained, to my awareness.
We do know how players do it, and directing another ship to lock onto a target, followed by firing on it, is a rather obvious set of events.
I would not expect to change the loadout of the ship remotely, so it would use whatever crystal, ammunition, or missile set was currently loaded. I feel it is a balance issue if the remotely operated ship loaded the next set of ammo when the first was used up, in cases where the first type was exhausted.

2. Prop mods are a gray area in my view, in this context. I would set it so they were always on or off, when not in warp, no changing for them remotely.

3. No maximum size for this, to my awareness, has been specified. That may be an explicit limiting factor, like you can only have 5 drones, maybe you can only control up to 5 other ships with this tool set.
I would think that this is a balance issue.

Personally, I would not be interested in replacing human players with AI, but I would be interested in controlling a few accounts at the same time, if I went to the trouble of paying for all of them.