These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

When NPCs become detrimental to PVP

First post
Author
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#161 - 2017-01-02 17:40:00 UTC
I have removed an off-topic posts and replies quoting it.
Quote:

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.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#162 - 2017-01-02 17:40:30 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Fellow capsuleers, come bear witness!

Here we have a thread of PvP players whining about PvE!

Usually we have dozens of PvE players whining about PvP, but this one is different (and yet the same)!

If you argue with them, they will insult you.
If you present rational arguments, they will ignore them.
(Again, the same).

The nasty NPCs are hurting these bold PvPers... blowing up their ships and stuffs.
Its unfair.
Clearly the PvE NPCs are too sm4rt and too stronk for them!

The baddy NPCs are ruining PvP!!!1 :(((

No. I dont think so.

If there is one thing more pathetic in and contrary to EVE than carebears whining about PvP intervention;
its PvP whining about PvE NPC intervention.

Adapt and HTFU.

A dynamic virtual environment in EVE is immeasurably better than a "dull and boring" one.
This in no way changes the essentially PvP nature of EVE.
It means the EVE sandbox itself behaves and reacts according to/as a consequence of player actions.



Like I said. 2017 is getting a good start.

My ultimate position on this: if PVe, the interaction between player and the Eve environment and NPCs (agents, rats, etc) cannot be free from intrusion or crossing paths with elements of PVP (ganks, gate camps, suspect baiting in mission rooms, MTU shooting, etc.), then in all fairness and in the all mighty, sacred, and holy aspect of the doctrines of HTFU, PVP shall also not be free from any elements of the Eve universe, agents, AIs, and other in-game elements.

Anybody who is pro PVP and/or pro gank who disagrees with that will be showing their double standard and themselves to be a hypocrite, which of course will be expected from people who gank hapless freighters and call it everything but that.

Any direction away from the vector of EQUAL intrusion into PVP by NPCs as such that PVP intrudes into PVE (and there are YEARS worth of intrusion to catch up on, I might add) will be construed as CCP once more deciding that players who prey on others are their bread and butter and everybody else should be encouraged to play something else.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Doddy
Excidium.
#163 - 2017-01-02 17:55:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Doddy
Remiel Pollard wrote:
stuff.


It does seem a bit whiny on your part, but there really isn't any reason for the player corp to have any relation to the npc corp fleets. CCP should probably change it. Not because it hurts you but because the players in that npc corp get an advantage nobody else in an npc corp gets. It hardly matters though, a player with that standing attacking a player in a belt with that mining op is not going to happen very often and the player should know before hand that the fleet is there. You are going to be spamming d-scan anyway right?

Also the fleet followed you? I didn't know they do that, they do not for you simply agressing them.

This is only the first step in npc population of the cluster so I imagine you will get things like this alot more, so ccp should probably make sure the corps they use wont randomly effect specific players (i.e. the members of one npc corp).
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#164 - 2017-01-02 18:12:26 UTC
I just realized something.

If Eve was as teeming with players as it should be, there would not be so much computing resources to be running AIs that can "decide" and chase players and such.

But who was it that helped keep this a niche game and drive out casual players? Who was it that would bump freighters and miners with zero consequences and then bask in making a "carebear" ragequit?

Why, the very "PVP" players who won't like improved NPC AI and their ganks... uh... content getting interfered with.

I know they'll say "but... but... CONCORD is NPC!". Yeah, because that's the only thing between the "content creator" and just about everybody new to the game leaving in a huff after 20 minutes because of "that kind of player who has nothing better to do but blap noobs by the station all day". The kind of player that nobody wants to play the same game with.
Eventually "HTFU" means nothing when nobody is listening.

But the salt and the irony is great thus far.

Considering the implications beyond some whiney gankbear complaining about losing a kill or two, this could be very epic in the long term.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#165 - 2017-01-02 18:18:17 UTC
Well this thread went to ****.

Not a surprise I guess.
Salvos Rhoska
#166 - 2017-01-02 18:19:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Herzog:

My approach is different.

I dont perceive this as a PvE vs PvP issue at all, in any form.
This direction of development improves them both.

What matters, is that EVE as a systemic environment, starts to dynamically react to player behavior.

This is a far truer manifestation of EVE, as a game in which you make your own destiny, than ever before.
Its no longer just players you compete with, but the EVE universe itself, which interacts according to your choices, and most importantly, the choices of others (which constitutes PvP too).

EVE will remain a pervasive PvP environment, but developed into a reactionary environment in terms of systemic mechanics.
This direction includes and improves both PvP, and PvE, for the betterment of the game.
A better sum total.

We have had many debates here on the nature of difference between PvP and PvE.
The definition of PvP has congealed and is a matter of wide concencus.
But the definition of PvE, is still ambiguous.

People forget, that the "E" in PvE, means Environment.
Boiled down, as established in our definition of PvP by exclusion, it means everything else except players.

EVE, in terms of NPC interaction and dynamics, is a vast dead expanse.
The "environment" is passive and inert.

People like Remiel and Torin argue it should remain "dull and boring".
I cant agree.
First of all, dull and boring is NEVER a good thing in a game, no matter how you cut it.
Second of all, EVE is a single shard universe already overwhelmingly directed by player behavior.
But its player action on a dead, inert landscape.

The potential of NPC dynamics opens up a third dimension, parallax and degree of complication that truly integrates player behavior into EVE, and EVE into player behavior.
Salvos Rhoska
#167 - 2017-01-02 18:43:17 UTC
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Well this thread went to ****.

Not a surprise I guess.


Thread was demonstrably checked by a mod.

You may not agree with what is said in it, but its legit.
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#168 - 2017-01-02 18:46:39 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:


People like Remiel and Torin argue it should remain "dull and boring".
I cant agree.
First of all, dull and boring is NEVER a good thing in a game, no matter how you cut it.
Second of all, EVE is a single shard universe already overwhelmingly directed by player behavior.
But its player action on a dead, inert landscape.

The potential of NPC dynamics opens up a third dimension, parallax and degree of complication that truly integrates player behavior into EVE, and EVE into player behavior.


I would just like to point out something rather important in relation to the quoted text.

I do not consider Eve to be dull and boring.
I have never considered Eve to be dull and boring.
If I considered Eve to be dull and boring I would of stopped playing very shortly after character creation.

Mission running is, I grant you, rather dull and boring. The only time I find it not to be is when I am running missions with newbros/ friends and we are having a blast on chat. So in order for it not to be dull and boring, it just needs the inclusion of other players.

As far as other people pointing out the irony of PvP'ers whining about PvE....I find this interesting if I'm to be included in that. I've never really considered myself to be a dedicated PvP'er or PvE'er. I do both. I'm a "filthy casual" , and have been for a long time.
I do whatever takes my fancy at any given time, and would like to continue to do so without having to spend too much of my limited time worrying about "fluff". But that's just me, and it's a product of the relation between how much game-time I have versus how much of that time I need to spend doing things I consider not-fun instead of lotsa-fun.

Ultimately whatever changes are made, I will adapt. As long as the ratio of fun to not-fun remains tolerable I will continue to play. If it becomes intolerable I will not. That's a personal decision that every player makes about every game that they play. Eve is no different in that respect.
Salvos Rhoska
#169 - 2017-01-02 18:52:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Torin Corax wrote:
snip.


Remiel specifically stated he wants NPC interaction to remain "dull and boring".

I have one question for you:

Do you disagree with the virtual NPC environment of EVE reacting dynamically and interactively to player behavior?
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#170 - 2017-01-02 19:14:01 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Torin Corax wrote:
snip.


I have one question for you:

Do you disagree with the virtual NPC environment of EVE reacting dynamically and interactively to player behavior?


I'm really not trying to be a troll when I say, that question is far to vague.

Any development along these lines is something that could be good, or could be bad. It is very much dependent on the specific interactions and the circumstances around them.

I've said before that I'm a role player at heart. So, in very general terms I'd say that improved interactions are something that could benefit the game....But the specific applications would have to be very carefully thought out.

I would prefer (purely personal opinion) that PvP have absolutely minimal impact on, and interference from NPC's. Pretty sure I've made that clear so farBlink

If these changes were to be made in conjunction with the removal of a players ability to join an NPC corp after the first 30 days or so, then I think the impact would be lessened. After this any player who chose for whatever reason to refrain from joining a player corp (or creating their own) would simply be listed as "freelance" or perhaps "unaligned". Subsequently killing such a player, whether as the aggressor or defender, would no longer have any impact upon NPC standings.

Then we could talk about mechanics of standings as every player would be starting from a level field. In order to gain the "protection" of NPC fleets, a player would have to actively grind the standings (as opposed to just fiddling the character creation system to put them in a favorable NPC corp).I'd still not be entirely happy, but it would at least be a start.
This net effect though is standings grind for both parties.

I do not enjoy standings grind. It is by necessity "forced" PvE at this time. This may be where you consider me a hypocrite for disliking forced PvE while supporting non-consensual PvP , but then it returns to the debate as to whether Eve is a PvP game first, with PvE "tacked on" or not. that's a different debate.

(Granted there are a few players who would say that Eve is in fact a market simulator....with occassional explosions that happen in the utterly unimportant space outside of stations) Lol
Salvos Rhoska
#171 - 2017-01-02 19:21:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Ok, Torin.

Your explored and explained your view, but I need an answer.

Considering your post above as read and recorded, what is your concluding answer?

Yay or nay?
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
#172 - 2017-01-02 19:34:17 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Do you disagree with the virtual NPC environment of EVE reacting dynamically and interactively to player behavior?

This is a stupid question.

The old NPC AI already does this. The new AI does it differently.

It's possible to say yes, but still have a totally opposing view about what that 'yes' means.
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#173 - 2017-01-02 19:34:50 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Ok, Torin.

Your statement is there and explained.

But is it a yes or no to the original question, as carrying your explanation.

Yes or no.


If you want a yes or no answer, ask a yes or no question. You are being extremely vague with that question and I am not going to give a definitive answer to a question like that. To do so would open the door to accusations of being deliberately misleading and/ or disingenuous on my part.

One thing that has occurred to me though. where would (player) corp standings come into play within such a system? Which would take priority with the NPC's in question?
If corp standing took priority, then things could get interesting. How many alts/ newbros would it take with high standings to get the NPC's to ignore low personal standings (assuming they would)?
Would this open the door for PvP-centric corps to start recruiting PvE'ers with good standings towards the NPC mining corps specifically to combat poor personal standings?
That is something that I could possibly get behind, as it would be a nice incentive for a more open recruiting policy. But then, there will probably still be many PvP corps that don't like the idea of their ranks being swelled by carebears. Recruitment being a personal choice as to who you spend your game time with.
Salvos Rhoska
#174 - 2017-01-02 19:38:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Torin Corax wrote:

If you want a yes or no answer, ask a yes or no question.

I did, here:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

I have one question for you:

Do you disagree with the virtual NPC environment of EVE reacting dynamically and interactively to player behavior?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6779927#post6779927

That is a yes/no question, allowing for explanation of the answer.

I got your explanation, but Im still waiting on your yes/no answer.

PS: Scipio, there is no such thing as a stupid question.
Questions, by format, are inquisitive of that which one does not know.
Thus either all questions are stupid (which is inane) or none are.

Yes/no questions are famous for over-simplifying a position.
That is why I allow an explanation, as Torin produced, for the answer.
But he has not yet said yes/no as an answer.
Torin Corax
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#175 - 2017-01-02 20:02:27 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Torin Corax wrote:

If you want a yes or no answer, ask a yes or no question.

I did, here:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:

I have one question for you:

Do you disagree with the virtual NPC environment of EVE reacting dynamically and interactively to player behavior?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6779927#post6779927

That is a yes/no question, allowing for explanation of the answer.

I got your explanation, but Im still waiting on your yes/no answer.

PS:Scipio, there is no such thing as a stupid question.


*Sigh*

I honestly thought you were an interesting person to debate with, but if you are going to attempt to troll through the use of a "classic" debaters trick, then I'm afraid you'll have to pick someone else.

Your question is deliberately vague. If I were to give a definitive answer, yes or no, then I would be allowing you the option of formulating a response wherein you could claim I was lying, being hypocritical or just plain trolling myself.

I'm not the smartest person on these forums by a long shot, but even I can recognize this. If you are doing this deliberately, then shame on you.
If you are honestly unaware of what you are doing, I can respectfully suggest you go watch a few videos of professional debaters at work, and then you will see why I shall refrain from humoring you.

I've made my position clear. I have attempted, as far as I am able, to be honest and open in my posts. I will henceforth attempt to refrain from encouraging the type of debating which I personally find distasteful.

Fly safe.
And if you can't fly safe, fly fast.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#176 - 2017-01-02 20:13:32 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Torin Corax wrote:

Personally I think NPC standings should be related strictly to NPC activities. Killing a player should not have any effect on standings beyond security rating. The fact that I could lose standings just from successfully defending myself from a gank is utterly absurd.



If you could wave a magic wand and have it your way, then to be fair to all players, gates to mission rooms should only let the player who has the mission in. You see there is of "NPC activity" that players are involved in that gets interrupted by "content creators" against the will of the NPC-involved player. Why is one sacred and the other not?


And yet another example that Herzog Wolfhammer does not get the concept of a player driven sandbox game. Yet another example of Herzog wanting to change the game so players can avoid interaction. Never mind CCP's own analysis suggesting that lack of interaction in EVE is a contributing factor to players leaving the game.

And of course there is no logical basis for this based on what Torin Corax wrote. He suggested that standings be limited to interacting with NPCs and have little to no impact on player-on-player interactions. How one can make a leap to having totally secure mission sites from such player-on-player action is completely baffling.

"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

Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#177 - 2017-01-02 20:19:42 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
TLDR: You are saying you are annoyed to have to adapt to an emerging system of NPC dynamics which interferes with your particular meta of hunting solo in belts.

Rather than thinking of the significance of this as a potentially EVE wide emergence of the virtual environment as a dynamic and reactive element of EVE, you are concerned with its impact on your personal status quo.

Is this an accurate assessment?


These are NOT emerging systems. They are top down diktat's from CCP. Emergence is what you get when smaller entities interact and create larger entities/structures. For example, players grouping up and creating a cohesive group. This can be done in game via corp/alliance mechanics, but it also could be done without it.

"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

Salvos Rhoska
#178 - 2017-01-02 20:32:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Torin:

Aah, the "classic", "no, I wont answer your questions, avoid them, and blabla" approach.
Whilst ignoring what I have argued, and expecting me to deliver answers to you.

First you emailed me with an excuse to avoid answering an itemized, numbered rebuttal.
Claiming it was off-topic. Yet you returned to discussion on the same points, without answering mine.

Second, you made statements, and when I asked you for a clarification of them via a yes/no conclusion (allowing for explanation/rationale leading to it), you blame me for trickery.

This is nonsense and breaks manifold rules of debate.

If you cant answer yes/no to a simple question, even when you have the opportunity to express conditions and justification for it, there is no way to argue the issue with you.

You dont care about debate on the issue, just your own position.
Ypu are concerned with your own advantage, not a co structive debate.
Its behavior that is dishonest, lacking intellectual integrity and personal dignity.

"*Sigh*"
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite
Safety.
#179 - 2017-01-02 20:33:55 UTC
I think it is quite funny watching all those carebears already taking an extra victory lap around the thread without even understanding what the people where talking about.

Salvos... awakening of EVE? Are you serious? We are talking about some NPC game mechanics which you can probably write down on a simple flowchart on a small piece of paper and not some skynet level event. Get some perspective...

Herzog... every time you write it seams you get a even more bitter than before. Your black and white PvP vs PvE rhetoric and your conspiracy theories about the motivations of certain players has nothing at all to do with the topic and even reality.

Torin... you are very patient man

But seriously, before more carebears get too excited about this, lets analyse what this is all actually about:

The introduction of new NPC response fleets with "PvPish" compositions which can be manipulated with NPC corp standing mechanics.

At the moment it is not entirely clear how far this manipulation can go, but don't mistake this for some "free help" for PvE players. People will find out how exactly those NPCs work, and it will as always be the people who care about game mechanics so they can use those new rules to kill other players and not the 90% carebear crowd which is as always completely oblivious to the fact this even exists.

Now before you write your next post about PvPer tears, make sure you have enough energy left for that other thread where people will complain about why they suddenly got obliterated by an NPC force when they shot the hauler who stole their ore cans.
Teckos Pech
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#180 - 2017-01-02 20:40:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Teckos Pech
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Well this thread went to ****.

Not a surprise I guess.


The problem, IMO, is alot of people don't understand emergence, either intuitively or the actual definition.

Example 1: calling the changes to can flipping by CCP a player driven change.
Example 2: calling this change to NPCs emergent, when in fact it is a top down change by CCP.

Here is a good rule of thumb, if CCP does something, it is likely not emergent.

That is not to say that CCP can't do things to promote emergence. For example, incursions. While incursions are not emergent, the way players reacted to them demonstrate emergence--disparate players setting up, for lack of a better word, institutions in game so that they can come together and take advantage of the incursions.

Granted, this change could also lead to emergence, but nobody has suggested emergent outcomes.

Instead we get people falling into their usual camps.

As for more interesting AI, I think it would be fine in say missions or anomalies. But this suddenly has NPCs interjecting themselves into player-on-player actions which is problematic in that it could discourage player-on-player interaction...the very thing this game is supposed to be about.

"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