These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Rat aggression swaps in pvp situations.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#381 - 2015-07-08 15:37:28 UTC
So first off my apologies for not reading all 19 pages of playground arguments but it would seem that the easiest "fix" would be to stop points / scrams from generating threat for rats. From a lore-ish perspective rate seem to go all kamikaze on everyone anyway and have no regard for their lives shown by them not warping out of sites. Why would they care about a point?

From a pvper perspective now the one tool you absolutely need to hunt successfully doesn't cause you to had to tank the full room each time but possibly depending on other mods you have active you may still have to deal with the rats. From the PvEer point of view you aren't guaranteed to have to tank all the rats every time so it is more fair than the old way and is basically exactly the same as what we have now.

Yes CCP changed rat mechanics as the old way was broken; no this doesn't imply that the new system is perfect.

The core of the problem is that everyone hates risk and in this issue are two different play styles with two competing goals.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
Iain Cariaba
#382 - 2015-07-08 16:00:22 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
no just negating your tru honorable pvp bullcr.. excuses, obviously.

I`m sure that TFI was totally fighting you back like a boss, in the first 2 seconds before it died.

He's in a fleet, I'm in a fleet. I had just as much chance of being called primary by their FC as he did being called primary by my FC.

Oh, nevermind. My opinion on anything is invalid to you because I don't fly around in 5mil isk frigates looking to kill carriers. Roll
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#383 - 2015-07-08 16:04:03 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
So first off my apologies for not reading all 19 pages of playground arguments but it would seem that the easiest "fix" would be to stop points / scrams from generating threat for rats. From a lore-ish perspective rate seem to go all kamikaze on everyone anyway and have no regard for their lives shown by them not warping out of sites. Why would they care about a point?

From a pvper perspective now the one tool you absolutely need to hunt successfully doesn't cause you to had to tank the full room each time but possibly depending on other mods you have active you may still have to deal with the rats. From the PvEer point of view you aren't guaranteed to have to tank all the rats every time so it is more fair than the old way and is basically exactly the same as what we have now.

Yes CCP changed rat mechanics as the old way was broken; no this doesn't imply that the new system is perfect.

The core of the problem is that everyone hates risk and in this issue are two different play styles with two competing goals.


Agree. Rats should prioritize by threat, so remote reps>damage done to them>dangeous mods (mods that do nothing to them like scram/points should be ignored)>people on grid in general.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#384 - 2015-07-08 16:11:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Iain Cariaba wrote:

He's in a fleet, I'm in a fleet. I had just as much chance of being called primary by their FC as he did being called primary by my FC.

The TFI kill was a blackops gank judging from KB. Where is your "I seek targets which can fight back" honor pvp you mentioned earlier?

Iain Cariaba wrote:

Oh, nevermind. My opinion on anything is invalid to you because I don't fly around in 5mil isk frigates looking to kill carriers. Roll

maybe you should just stop shitposting and derailing. Noone asks for a frigate killing a carrier, exaggeration wont make your non-argument look better.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#385 - 2015-07-08 16:24:26 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:
So first off my apologies for not reading all 19 pages of playground arguments but it would seem that the easiest "fix" would be to stop points / scrams from generating threat for rats. From a lore-ish perspective rate seem to go all kamikaze on everyone anyway and have no regard for their lives shown by them not warping out of sites. Why would they care about a point?

From a pvper perspective now the one tool you absolutely need to hunt successfully doesn't cause you to had to tank the full room each time but possibly depending on other mods you have active you may still have to deal with the rats. From the PvEer point of view you aren't guaranteed to have to tank all the rats every time so it is more fair than the old way and is basically exactly the same as what we have now.

Yes CCP changed rat mechanics as the old way was broken; no this doesn't imply that the new system is perfect.

The core of the problem is that everyone hates risk and in this issue are two different play styles with two competing goals.


The problem is if they still want to try in a frig and the rats has at least a chance of targetting him, he will get removed off the field and be unhappy because the odds randomly stacked against him. Frigate and T3D would not be any more viable since you could still get erased from grid anyway if you have a chance of triggering an aggro swap even if not a complete swap from a point.

Either the rats always keep shooting the PvEer or they don't which mean either the PvPer can ignore the rats as long as I don't get a trigger down or he can be effortlessly erased from the grid because his frig can't tank the site. There is no half choice since he want to do it with paper ships hence why I tell them that one way or another, the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with. Changing the trigger won't matter to hunter in frigs and dessies unless the trigger are made to never get touched by them and at that point, they might as well not exist.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#386 - 2015-07-08 16:33:43 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with.


we dont know, since CCP's AI upgrade was focused on PvE according to the devblog.
Iain Cariaba
#387 - 2015-07-08 16:36:14 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:

The TFI kill was a blackops gank judging from KB. Where is your "I seek targets which can fight back" honor pvp you mentioned earlier?

Oh, I remember that one now. We dirty renters attacked a lone TFI in a belt when the group of us get hotdropped. Maybe you should look deeper into the battle report than just the single killmail, like how my corpmate died to the hotdroppers.

Mark Hadden wrote:
maybe you should just stop shitposting and derailing. Noone asks for a frigate killing a carrier, exaggeration wont make your non-argument look better.

Oh, you mean like this post?
Mark Hadden wrote:
mission runners like Mike Voidstar enjoy the rats defending them in missions, pointless to argue with them.

Or maybe this one?
Mark Hadden wrote:
oh, another PvEer shitposting about "easy kills".

Or how about this one?
Mark Hadden wrote:
we should stop argueing about PvP topics with mission runners like Mike.

I'd list more Mark Hadden shitposts and derailing, but I ran out of quote space. It's easy to find though, just read any post you've made in this thread past page 1.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#388 - 2015-07-08 16:38:59 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with.


we dont know, since CCP's AI upgrade was focused on PvE according to the devblog.


They made point trigger a hard switch to prevent all of those abuse in PvE I guess...
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#389 - 2015-07-08 16:42:45 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
So first off my apologies for not reading all 19 pages of playground arguments but it would seem that the easiest "fix" would be to stop points / scrams from generating threat for rats. From a lore-ish perspective rate seem to go all kamikaze on everyone anyway and have no regard for their lives shown by them not warping out of sites. Why would they care about a point?

From a pvper perspective now the one tool you absolutely need to hunt successfully doesn't cause you to had to tank the full room each time but possibly depending on other mods you have active you may still have to deal with the rats. From the PvEer point of view you aren't guaranteed to have to tank all the rats every time so it is more fair than the old way and is basically exactly the same as what we have now.

Yes CCP changed rat mechanics as the old way was broken; no this doesn't imply that the new system is perfect.

The core of the problem is that everyone hates risk and in this issue are two different play styles with two competing goals.


The problem is if they still want to try in a frig and the rats has at least a chance of targetting him, he will get removed off the field and be unhappy because the odds randomly stacked against him. Frigate and T3D would not be any more viable since you could still get erased from grid anyway if you have a chance of triggering an aggro swap even if not a complete swap from a point.

Either the rats always keep shooting the PvEer or they don't which mean either the PvPer can ignore the rats as long as I don't get a trigger down or he can be effortlessly erased from the grid because his frig can't tank the site. There is no half choice since he want to do it with paper ships hence why I tell them that one way or another, the tool being used is what prevent them from doing it, not the rats unless you make the rat 100% irrelevant which CCP didn't want to begin with. Changing the trigger won't matter to hunter in frigs and dessies unless the trigger are made to never get touched by them and at that point, they might as well not exist.


I think the view from certain people here is that they can't use their frigates / dessies because their point/scram is almost guaranteed to cause an aggro swap. If points didn't cause this then there's a chance they wouldn't get primaried but then again it is still only a chance. I agree with Mike and others about right tool for the job and if your ship is so thin that the rats in whatever site you choose can volley you off the field perhaps you should look for targets in easier sites. Most PvEers won't fit a point so if the rats do switch and your tank is failing nothing stops you from simply leaving and saying to yourself "hmm guess that won't work".

Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way.

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#390 - 2015-07-08 16:49:18 UTC  |  Edited by: SFM Hobb3s
I love the way the rats behave.

Back in Venal I used to love setting traps in the unrated plex 'Gurista Military Complex'. It's the only site I would actively let someone probe me down in.

I would ignore almost all rats in the first room, get near the next acceleration gate, hit the trigger and activate the gate immediately (before the scramming frigs get you).

Then I'd wait far from the entry beacon in the next room.

I had countless recon and t3 ships warp in to that first room, only to see a wreck show up on d-scan moments later rofl (first room bm'd for extra loot collection hehe).

And on the rare occasion someone did make it into the second room successfully, Boom. Used my other alt to hit the station and trigger an EMP bomb that usually instantly popped anything smaller than a cruiser.

Good times.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#391 - 2015-07-08 17:01:29 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
I'd list more Mark Hadden shitposts and derailing, but I ran out of quote space. It's easy to find though, just read any post you've made in this thread past page 1.


no its not shitposting, just saying how pointless a pvp discussion is with a mission runner - its like you wanted to argue about fking with a virgin, you wouldn't really, would you?


Frostys Virpio wrote:

They made point trigger a hard switch to prevent all of those abuse in PvE I guess...


they made ALL ewar to hard switch. All I can tell you is that you cant conclude intention solely from its presence.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5860167#post5860167
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5860410#post5860410

for the same idiotic "it must be right because its there"-narrative
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#392 - 2015-07-08 17:03:44 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
I'd list more Mark Hadden shitposts and derailing, but I ran out of quote space. It's easy to find though, just read any post you've made in this thread past page 1.


no its not shitposting, just saying how pointless a pvp discussion is with a mission runner - its like you wanted to argue about fking with a virgin, you wouldn't really, would you?


Frostys Virpio wrote:

They made point trigger a hard switch to prevent all of those abuse in PvE I guess...


they made ALL ewar to hard switch. All I can tell you is that you cant conclude intention solely from its presence.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5860167#post5860167
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5860410#post5860410

for the same idiotic "it must be right because its there"-narrative


It must be wrong because I dislike it is such a great argument too...

At least I have the damn code supporting my point while all you have is your own crying.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#393 - 2015-07-08 17:04:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mr Mieyli wrote:
I agree with Mike and others about right tool for the job and if your ship is so thin that the rats in whatever site you choose can volley you off the field perhaps you should look for targets in easier sites.

doesnt surprise me that a guy with 0 KB record agrees Mike and "others".

Mr Mieyli wrote:
Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way.

that would be a start

Frostys Virpio wrote:

It must be wrong because I dislike it is such a great argument too...

At least I have the damn code supporting my point while all you have is your own crying.


no, I presented arguments and reasons why I think its wrong and why I want a change.

1) it adds huge chunk of unneccessary safety to farmers for no real reason

2) it removes (solo) pvp content which very many of us enjoyed, my making it such harder and
pushing it onto the brink of time waste (if not even far beyond that)

3) rats defending the farmer doesnt make sense
Iain Cariaba
#394 - 2015-07-08 17:13:09 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
no, I presented arguments and reasons why I think its wrong and why I want a change.
1) it adds huge chunk of unneccessary safety to farmers
2) it removes pvp content my making it lots harder
3) rats defending the farmer doesnt make sense

You presented arguments and reasons for these where, exactly? All you've provided is that you think it should be different, which is zero justification for it being changed back to the way it used to be.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#395 - 2015-07-08 17:16:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Iain Cariaba wrote:

You presented arguments and reasons for these where, exactly?

in this thread, where otherwise?

Iain Cariaba wrote:
All you've provided is that you think it should be different, which is zero justification for it being changed back to the way it used to be.

yes, thats exactly what I wrote - why would you quote me and repeat my text? Whats the point?

I presented those reasons why I think it should get changed back. Like everyone else posting his opinion for changing game mechanics in "Features & Ideas Discussion", is this new to you?
Mr Mieyli
Doomheim
#396 - 2015-07-08 17:35:43 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Mr Mieyli wrote:
I agree with Mike and others about right tool for the job and if your ship is so thin that the rats in whatever site you choose can volley you off the field perhaps you should look for targets in easier sites.

doesnt surprise me that a guy with 0 KB record agrees Mike and "others".

Mr Mieyli wrote:
Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way.

that would be a start

Frostys Virpio wrote:

It must be wrong because I dislike it is such a great argument too...

At least I have the damn code supporting my point while all you have is your own crying.


no, I presented arguments and reasons why I think its wrong and why I want a change.

1) it adds huge chunk of unneccessary safety to farmers for no real reason

2) it removes (solo) pvp content which very many of us enjoyed, my making it such harder and
pushing it onto the brink of time waste (if not even far beyond that)

3) rats defending the farmer doesnt make sense


If you weren't so busy cherry-picking pieces of people's posts you might have noticed I have been supporting in this thread changes to make ratter hunting easier for you and others like you. This is obviously an alt of mine as I don't believe my name should affect how people see my posts however for the record I've lived in every type of space there is in eve and have done content from ratting to incursions to low-sec camps to null-sec fleets and hunting in WHs.

I agree with Mike but only to an extent; you can't expect to bring a frigate to everything and have success but making points not generate aggro would mean that you have a chance to get your solo kills. You can't argue for the old mechanics as they were broken for numerous other reasons and had to be changed. I do think that the PvP consequences may have been unintended but the old mechanics would now be 12 years old and as other people have said it was hilariously broken even PvE-wise, the new system is an improvement but not perfect as it might be limiting choice of ship for PvP too much.

PvE-ers would be happiest with the mechanics as they are now, several people in this thread would be happy with the old system. Would removing aggro from points be a compromise you'd be able to accept?

This post brought to you by CCP's alpha forum alt initiative. Playing the eve forums has never come cheaper.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#397 - 2015-07-08 17:39:57 UTC
Mr Mieyli wrote:

Hidden behind the whine the message is that points (a 100% necessary mod for PvP) causing aggro switches makes certain ships completely unsuited to hunt ratters. Removing aggro generation from points would give solo roamers more of a chance but not cr*p all over PvEers by going back to the old way.


Agreed, like a force recon which is supposed to be able to sneak behind enemy lines and disrupt things and look at the Arazu, one of its bonuses is for point range.

Complaining that you can’t warp in and an tackle a ratter in a T1 frig and let the rats do the bulk of your work for you is rather whiney, IMO. I could see changing the AI so the rats put smaller ships at a higher priority in their targeting AI.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#398 - 2015-07-08 17:46:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mr Mieyli wrote:

If you weren't so busy cherry-picking pieces of people's posts you might have noticed I have been supporting in this thread changes to make ratter hunting easier for you and others like you. This is obviously an alt of mine as I don't believe my name should affect how people see my posts however for the record I've lived in every type of space there is in eve and have done content from ratting to incursions to low-sec camps to null-sec fleets and hunting in WHs.

I'm not cherrypicking but try to focus my response to key parts of someones text.

for me, knowing if I argue with a pure mission runner like Mike or someone with a clue about the matter has a very big value for reasons I already stated many times here, thats why I check killboards.

Mr Mieyli wrote:

I do think that the PvP consequences may have been unintended but the old mechanics would now be 12 years old and as other people have said it was hilariously broken even PvE-wise

fully agree, PvE wise. PvP-wise they were fine. If you farm red crosses all day long, you should expect a full load from them - not something totally unintuitive and ******** like protection, like it is now defacto.

Mr Mieyli wrote:

PvE-ers would be happiest with the mechanics as they are now, several people in this thread would be happy with the old system. Would removing aggro from points be a compromise you'd be able to accept?

removing aggro switch from points would be a huge help, yes.


Teckos Pech wrote:

Complaining that you can’t warp in and an tackle a ratter in a T1 frig and let the rats do the bulk of your work for you is rather whiney, IMO. I could see changing the AI so the rats put smaller ships at a higher priority in their targeting AI.


tbh, if
1) your alliance allows T1 frigate to spread terror in your space uncontested
2) you die to a T1 frigate disrupting you

you deserved that loss for being a clueless idiot.
dont you think so? Such kills are one thing of many, which made this game so great initially!
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#399 - 2015-07-08 18:03:03 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I don't know why CCP did that. All I was saying is that nobody can pull the "it was unintended by CCP" card. It was obviously wanted or they would not of coded such hard switch exceptions in it. Weapons don't trigger hard change for example.


its not like its first time when CCP impemented stupid changes with unforeseen consequences.

Because I really cant imagine any reason why CCPs would want PvE so much safer, but you're right I can only guess and logically assume whether this consequence was intended or not, considering their focus on PvE as they released Retribution and its "new, intelligent" AI - there was no word about PvP in corresponding dev blog.


How can you call it "unforeseen consequence" when there are obviously lines of code there to generate exactly this behavior?



Oh, I can call it unforeseen consequence. Look at how they initially introduced T2 into the game. Anybody with half a brain could see that it would cause prices for T2 to skyrocket and give people lucky enough to get a T2 BPC to have an isk printing machine. It was a huge advantage. And the results were as obvious as the text on this page because when you introduce something in a very limited supply to people then you’ll get pricing that is way, way, way above (marginal) cost. It isn’t quite as bad as monopoly, but it’s the next worst thing. Further, depending on the number of T2 BPCs creating a cartel to mimic monopoly pricing is also possible.

Also look at technetium, IIRC, one player crunched the numbers and posted that it would become a bottleneck in production and the prices would spike. And look it did. And several coalitions did create a cartel very much like the real life OPEC (the in game cartel was named OTEC to bludgeon people over the head with the parallels).

By calling it unforeseen consequence I am being charitable….especially given that CCP had an economist working for them that could have told them these outcomes.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#400 - 2015-07-08 19:28:08 UTC
Quote:

Forum rules

23. Post constructively.

Negative feedback can be very useful to further improve EVE Online provided that it is presented in a civil and factual manner. All users are encouraged to honestly express their feelings regarding EVE Online and how it can be improved. Posts that are non-constructive, insulting or in breach of the rules will be deleted regardless of how valid the ideas behind them may be. Users are also reminded that posting with a lack of content also constitutes non-constructive posting.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.


Closed.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department