These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Brains! NOM NOM!

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#561 - 2012-09-24 12:39:10 UTC
darius mclever wrote:
Care Bear King wrote:
Drones:
2. Fix the 'lose drones on disconnect' issue by having them follow your ship into warp (please).


warp back to mission/plex -> right click on your capacitor -> reconnect to drones.


Hate to break your delusion, but usually 1-2 are dead by then. And yes, i have a very unstable connection.
Alayna Le'line
#562 - 2012-09-24 14:55:16 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Thanks for setting me strait that my 74km control range is never to be used with heavies though.


That is not really true though. True Scout drone operation gives 20 km to control range, but that is for scout drones not heavies. True electronic warfare drone interfacing gives another 15 km, but that is added range for using EW drones not heavies.

So the only range for using heavies (not explicitly said like above) is the base range of 20 kms. One should only use that range for heavies otherwise its a waste. Of course with you using drone nav computers that does help make them fly longer ranges.


You obviously don't use drones, so here you go:

"EVElopedia" wrote:

Range

Drone range on sub-capital ships can be increased in various ways. The base range is 20km. Scout Drone Operation adds 5km per skill level, Electronic Warfare Drone Interfacing adds 3km per skill level for all drones, not just EWAR drones. The range can be increased with a Drone Link Augmenter, increasing it by 20km per module. Drone Rigs increase range by 15km (tech 1) or 20km (tech 2).


In other words those two skills affect all drones (including Sentry Drones) except fighters.
Tru Love
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#563 - 2012-09-24 15:13:37 UTC
Starakus wrote:
From a developer point of view I can not see why on earth this is being done and being done the way it is being done.

Here is the best way to implement your new AI if you are really hell bent on having a new one:

-Do not implement the new AI on ANY old content.
-Create entirely new missions, encounters, experiences, and rewards based around your new AI.

The benefits:
-As a player you retain the sandbox experience. Players continue to have a choice about their game experience and which kind of content they wish to participate in.

-As a Dev you don't have to examine and tweak every individual mission, complex, and site for problems and forum complaints.
-As a Dev you can start by creating an example mission where people can test the newly introduced set of missions under a controlled scenario with different ship setups, drones, and player compositions.
-As a Dev you don't have account for every single situation where your new AI changes have broken parts of the game that you did not think of, ignored, or missed.

-As a company you retain the player base that actually enjoys the way content is and has been for near a decade.
-As a company you bring in new players and retain old ones because you are actually releasing new content.

Any other way and your looking at losing customers and in the process creating a nightmare of work for yourself by having to retweak every single mission and each individual mission scenario.
In addition you risk breaking many parts of the game that obviously were not considered, such as PVP mission ganking, ninja salvaging, and much more. By creating an example mission, every player class and every play style from PVP to PVE to anything in between can run and gank this mission, bring in lower level friends, ninja salvage, test and plug grief tactics and identify and plug possible exploits.

If I decide to quit it won't be because I dislike the proposed new AI system, but because of the way it is being implemented. In its current form it breaks existing content that was previously not broken and takes away attention and Dev time from issues in the game that are clearly still broken such as the inventory system, bounty system, alliance and corporation system, medals system, black ops, and the list endless. The forums are ripe with issues from the player community that remain to be addressed and with these proposed changes and in the manner in which they are being proposed is just begging for even more player discontent based on mission bugs or its effect on their style of gameplay.

I hope you take these suggestions as a player who really does not want to quit and has stated the obvious not out of criticism but as a genuine way to retain your player base and better the game.

Not empty quoting.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#564 - 2012-09-24 15:45:56 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
CCP FoxFour wrote:
Not a problem. Please keep in mind that these changes are coming for our winter release, we have two content designers working on this, and as far as the two of us are concerned this is our big thing for the winter release.

Really, now? You have two content designers working on changes that have the potential to break large swaths of PVE, not to mention hurt the already anemic nullsec individual income. Do you have any plans about maybe raising null bounties or fixing loot tables, or are we supposed to be content with yet more "content" which further establishes highsec as having a far better risk/reward ratio than nullsec?


CCP FoxFour instead of saying you have 2 content designers working on it you shoulda worded it: " CCP has devoted 50% of our entire game content desgner workforce" so it sounds more significant Lol
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#565 - 2012-09-24 15:58:29 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
[quote=James Amril-Kesh]I'm with James on this point. I'm pretty sure I have mentioned this earlier in this thread or another, but the agents that are constantly farmed really, really need to have a dynamic payout that diminished the more it is farmed. Not by just the single player, but by all players.

Once the agent is diminished to a certain point, he packs his backs and moves somewhere else. I like the idea that they would move to the closest station that is in a system that has a security system one level lower than the current one he/she is in. This would eventually mean agents heading out to null and to player owned stations. Then once they hit the very lowest sec system and they are ran till fully diminished, they hop a transport and go back to a 1.0 system and the cycle starts over. With a vast majority of players in high sec, the agents would spend a majority of their time in low and null sec, thus helping to boost the income there.

But that is just one idea. I just think the same level 4 agents being constantly farmed with no reduced payout or anything to be a terrible mechanic. Isolating players to a select system and limiting their sandbox. Players need to travel and explore. Anyways, just another wild and crazy thought from me. I'm sure to get heavy flamed from the bot users, high sec mission farming players, the null players who only are capable of seeing the author of a post and not the content of the post itself, blah, blah, blah.

I broadly agree, though it would make more sense to follow the laws of supply and demand and just have popular agents lower their fees to take advantage of the abundance of labour, whilst underused agents upped their payouts to attract pilots from elsewhere, rather than them outright packing up and moving.

That works too. There still needs to be a way for null player stations to have agents or something. Station upgrade maybe?
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#566 - 2012-09-24 16:05:39 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
I broadly agree, though it would make more sense to follow the laws of supply and demand and just have popular agents lower their fees to take advantage of the abundance of labour, whilst underused agents upped their payouts to attract pilots from elsewhere, rather than them outright packing up and moving.


Exempt L1s and I'm on board. No reason to punish newbies.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#567 - 2012-09-24 16:08:39 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
[quote=Marlona Sky]*snip* a very interesting idea re: dynamic agent placement.

That works too. There still needs to be a way for null player stations to have agents or something. Station upgrade maybe?
The Outpost upgrade is an excellent idea -- I really like it as yet another way in which null-sec players can improve their space. And this is yet another way in which CCP can remove ISK from EVE via the Sov upgrade system.

In the mean time, there are many null-sec Regions that already have NPC owned stations containing pirate faction agents.

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#568 - 2012-09-24 16:12:15 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
I broadly agree, though it would make more sense to follow the laws of supply and demand and just have popular agents lower their fees to take advantage of the abundance of labour, whilst underused agents upped their payouts to attract pilots from elsewhere, rather than them outright packing up and moving.


Exempt L1s and I'm on board. No reason to punish newbies.

I forgot to mention L1s. Yes there should always be a mission to run.
Alayna Le'line
#569 - 2012-09-24 16:12:32 UTC
Doh, nvm.
Sinigr Shadowsong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#570 - 2012-09-24 16:14:18 UTC
Just make NPC ignore the drones unless drone user is clearly AFK. Having to scoop your drones is not that enjoyable when you have to deal with dozens assaults/hacs in anomaly or mission. AI change already hits hard those who use dualboxing for remrep/SB DPS and punish everyone who want to invite a friend that new to EVE to anomaly/mission, I guess that's enough of a trouble for players alreeady.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#571 - 2012-09-24 16:14:37 UTC
I have always wondered something. Why are the NPC's called rats? Who first coined this term and why?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#572 - 2012-09-24 16:28:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Marlona Sky wrote:
I have always wondered something. Why are the NPC's called rats? Who first coined this term and why?


Really?

CCP Gargant wrote:
The NPC pirate ships, generally called rats,


PIE.....RAT......
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#573 - 2012-09-24 16:58:25 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I have always wondered something. Why are the NPC's called rats? Who first coined this term and why?


Really?

CCP Gargant wrote:
The NPC pirate ships, generally called rats,


PIE.....RAT......


Also, to distinguish them readily from PC pirates, and possibly as an allusion to the canonical first monster anyone ever faced in a MUD, or early MMO.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Evildchild
Barringtons Research
#574 - 2012-09-24 17:07:36 UTC
One question I know with everything going on and all the cool changes that are being made to the game, including Dust514. Has / is anyone decided to ever fix the POS mechanics? It's the simple things that makes the Indy's happy you know!!! I say point me in the direction of the person who's going to be working on that. My friends and I have a ton of ideas and changes that would make the whole pos experience better.
Victor Gallows
Doomheim
#575 - 2012-09-24 17:10:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Victor Gallows
FoxFour,

I've been running missions for some time while these billion and a half skills train that I'll need for PvP, and more dangerous adventures. Tried mining and it wasn't interactive enough to keep me interested. I'm still doing primarily level 3’s as I’m about a week or two from support skills for level 4’s. So, I’m still running with a Drake and T2 LS drones.

First, I’d like to say I love the idea that missions would become more challenging. Hell, I’d like to see all lot more thought go into this from the player all around. I’ve managed to do just about every level 3 in the database in my Drake with a Tech 1 tank; even though I was told many times this would cost me my ship. Presumably, because I fit for the mission, I’m not AFK, and I watch my triggers, etc. So, more challenge would be welcome, especially if it’s not in the form of more damage and tougher rat tanks. Increasing that stuff just means new players have to train longer before starting a mission level bracket, and not that doing said mission bracket will require any more thought than it does now.

I do have one concern though… I’ve seen in the thread here how much hate there is for LS drones now. While pulling them in and re-deploying isn’t an issue for me if they happen to grab agro; there is one issue with LS drones: NPC destroyers. A stray rail equipped NPC Catalyst or Cormorant can already 2 shot a T2 LS drone between the time you first notice it being hit and it returning to the bay. If an entire group of destroyers were to re-target your drones in a level 3, I don’t see many of them surviving long enough to return to the bay. So, you might want to watch the destroyer hate on LS drones or I might as well not bring them on destroyer-swarmed level 3s.

Yes, NPC destroyers easy enough to drop with a target painter and a volley of HMLs. But, I’m more concerned with times when the drones are still out whittling down that last “Dire” NPC frigate's tough tank and a timed spawn goes off filled with destroyers.

PS: If you do want us to treat drones as disposable ammo that seems reasonable, I am flying a missile boat after all. But, we'd really need some way of reloading the drone bay from cargo. Right now, if I were to lose say 3/5 drones in a frigate thick mission it means I need to dock to fix that problem with only 25m3 of SPACE. Additionally T2 drones would need to become materials cheaper if they're to be viewed as disposable or I'd switch back to T1 for missioning and not look back.
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
#576 - 2012-09-24 17:58:39 UTC
I'm pretty much training up to specialize in drones in anticipation of the new Amarr/Gallente destroyers, and eventually on to things like the Ishtar. I'm fine with having to pay attention to my little pretties drones, though I am concerned about it being on the level of Sleepers. I don't even touch WH space because Sleepers just murder my drones, and I don't even bother trying. But I am eager to not being tempted to fall asleep during missions! Keep at it.
Shiroh Yatamii
Alexylva Paradox
#577 - 2012-09-24 18:02:04 UTC
Victor Gallows wrote:

PS: If you do want us to treat drones as disposable ammo that seems reasonable, I am flying a missile boat after all. But, we'd really need some way of reloading the drone bay from cargo. Right now, if I were to lose say 3/5 drones in a frigate thick mission it means I need to dock to fix that problem with only 25m3 of SPACE. Additionally T2 drones would need to become materials cheaper if they're to be viewed as disposable or I'd switch back to T1 for missioning and not look back.


This, exactly. It's an either/or scenario. Either they're treated like ammo, and we can shift drones from cargo to drone bay OR they're not treated quite like disposable ammo.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#578 - 2012-09-24 18:02:17 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
There still needs to be a way for null player stations to have agents or something. Station upgrade maybe?

Station upgrade, or perhaps something that gets bolted on to a TCU and plants agents in space.

I've sometimes commented in the past that Dominion will be a good expansion when CCP finish it, and while it's only a drop in the ocean by itself, its one way to help place some badly-needed flesh on the bare bones.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Victor Gallows
Doomheim
#579 - 2012-09-24 18:20:01 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
There still needs to be a way for null player stations to have agents or something. Station upgrade maybe?

Station upgrade, or perhaps something that gets bolted on to a TCU and plants agents in space.

I've sometimes commented in the past that Dominion will be a good expansion when CCP finish it, and while it's only a drop in the ocean by itself, its one way to help place some badly-needed flesh on the bare bones.


Would give a new player like me a reason to start looking at null corps as well. And a reason to look for more on the DScan than just ninja salvagers. (Not that salvage is worth picking a fight and loosing an expensive mission boat over anyway.)
Tiger Would
Doomheim
#580 - 2012-09-24 18:37:46 UTC
CCP Gargant wrote:
The NPC pirate ships, generally called rats, will be getting a few upgrades to their... brains? CCP FoxFour has written a new dev blog about the plans to make our resident computer controlled entities just a little smarter.

It is available for your reading pleasure here.

Please let us know what you think of these upcoming upgrades in the comments section below.



EoE-Group will be watching you!

Once you think you have it all, you have actually become ignorant towards everything else.

T. Would