These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Winter] Changes to NPC AI

First post
Author
Sun Ying
Sun Ltd.
#361 - 2012-10-27 12:59:11 UTC
Quote:
Mass Testing AI

On top of this, Team Five 0 would like to run a mass test on Monday, October 29th, at 14:00 EVE time. During this time we would like to test the performance impact of the new AI having been applied to everything. For details about this mass test, see FoxFour's thread here.


Are the rules/rewards the same as the previous mass test , just asking since the OP isn't updated to reflect the 29th October Mass Test.
Rengerel en Distel
#362 - 2012-10-27 13:33:25 UTC
Sun Ying wrote:
Quote:
Mass Testing AI

On top of this, Team Five 0 would like to run a mass test on Monday, October 29th, at 14:00 EVE time. During this time we would like to test the performance impact of the new AI having been applied to everything. For details about this mass test, see FoxFour's thread here.


Are the rules/rewards the same as the previous mass test , just asking since the OP isn't updated to reflect the 29th October Mass Test.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2099233#post2099233
2 pages back, dev post ...

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Rengerel en Distel
#363 - 2012-10-27 14:36:57 UTC
Ok, tried a level 2 in a vexor with light drones, equipped a TD. got full room aggro, launched drones, they immediately got aggro. TD'd a rat no change. Killed a different rat while TD'ing the other, no change. Recall drones, got aggro, relaunch, kept aggro.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.

Risien Drogonne
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#364 - 2012-10-27 16:46:03 UTC
Singira wrote:


Why do you think the rats should turn from the guy killing them, to the guy helping them?
That does not make a lot of sense from any viewpoint other than the afk ratter that rather would do a lot of other things than play the game..

I was speaking from a gameplay POV (that of the unfairness of ganking supertanked battleships in frigates) rather than from a decision-making-NPC POV. "Realism" arguments rarely have a place in MMOs.

In a realism argument, most of the DPS would stay on the battleship, but several tackler frigs would break to tackle the newcomer so they can kill him too.
Singira
Heffalumps and Woozles.
#365 - 2012-10-27 17:32:43 UTC
Risien Drogonne wrote:
Singira wrote:


Why do you think the rats should turn from the guy killing them, to the guy helping them?
That does not make a lot of sense from any viewpoint other than the afk ratter that rather would do a lot of other things than play the game..

I was speaking from a gameplay POV (that of the unfairness of ganking supertanked battleships in frigates) rather than from a decision-making-NPC POV. "Realism" arguments rarely have a place in MMOs.

In a realism argument, most of the DPS would stay on the battleship, but several tackler frigs would break to tackle the newcomer so they can kill him too.



If anything, shooting at the ratter should actually lower the threat of the bomber..

A supertanked BS will stand a very good chance vs a single bomber..
A well tanked BC will stand a fair chance against a single bomber..
A semi-decent pilot will stand a good chance anyday..

But none of the above get caught in Anoms by single bombers by mistake..

The people who are doing anything but playing the game get caught and killed by frigs in anoms..
But hopefully they learn from the experience..

In realism you would never spend more than a couple of frigs on a single bomber when fighting a "supertanked bs" that has allready wasted a bunch of your buddies..
Especially not if said bomber were actually breaking his tank for you..
And any decent bomber pilot would never go close enough to get caught while randomly helping out a neutral fleet that allready have tackled said "supertanked bs"..

Can we now end the silly comparison between PvP and PvE?
Alltho you get jumped when doing PvE, then PvE is still not comparable to PvP even if you might like to imagine this while slaughtering rats..

So instead of thinking up arguments for having rats boduguard their own nemesis, think of ways to avoid getting caught in the first place or go back to highsec..
Vatek
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#366 - 2012-10-27 17:38:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vatek
Risien Drogonne wrote:
Singira wrote:


Why do you think the rats should turn from the guy killing them, to the guy helping them?
That does not make a lot of sense from any viewpoint other than the afk ratter that rather would do a lot of other things than play the game..

I was speaking from a gameplay POV (that of the unfairness of ganking supertanked battleships in frigates) rather than from a decision-making-NPC POV. "Realism" arguments rarely have a place in MMOs.

In a realism argument, most of the DPS would stay on the battleship, but several tackler frigs would break to tackle the newcomer so they can kill him too.


It's not fair that a frigate designed specifically to kill battleships can, in fact, kill battleships?

"Supertanked" is a bit of a misnomer as the bomber is specifically chosen to target the resist hole of the ship (I mostly hunt in guristas space and most guristas ratters leave the EM hole on their shield tanks wide open, so I use a purifier). Being smart enough to plug up those holes makes a gank significantly more difficult or straight up not possible.
Dregol
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#367 - 2012-10-27 20:21:22 UTC
Are you scaling back the difficulty of the Blood Raider high end complexes to compensate for the AI changes? These complexes are difficult to begin with (and most simply aren't worth doing I'm talking to you provincial HQ) with a dedicated brick tank. Changing targets means that it's going to be pretty nearly impossible to do these complexes. I get the point is to make shooting red crosses a little more difficult, but this is just stupid beyond reason.
Risien Drogonne
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#368 - 2012-10-27 20:29:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Risien Drogonne
Singira wrote:

Can we now end the silly comparison between PvP and PvE?


That seems unreasonable in a debate where PvP is happening during PvE.

Singira wrote:
Alltho you get jumped when doing PvE, then PvE is still not comparable to PvP even if you might like to imagine this while slaughtering rats..

So instead of thinking up arguments for having rats boduguard their own nemesis, think of ways to avoid getting caught in the first place or go back to highsec..

Nice try, but we're talking about test server mechanics here, not how you wish things would be. Currently, the PvP aggressor is getting nailed by the rats along with the ratter. So it's on YOU to adapt or die, not on the ratter. The onus is on YOU to make CCP change their minds, not the ratter.

All this "go back to high sec you carebear crybaby ratter!" nonsense is 100% useless in this debate. Save it for the regular forums instead of this test forum.
Risien Drogonne
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#369 - 2012-10-27 20:34:15 UTC
Vatek wrote:


It's not fair that a frigate designed specifically to kill battleships can, in fact, kill battleships?

That's a misrepresentation of both this debate and my position in it and you know it. The ship in question needs the DPS of the rats in order to break the battleship's tank, so it is not, in fact, "designed to kill battleships"... at least not THIS battleship. It's designed to hold battleships and help kill them. BIG difference.
Adigard
RubberDuckies
#370 - 2012-10-27 20:52:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Adigard
Dregol wrote:
Are you scaling back the difficulty of the Blood Raider high end complexes to compensate for the AI changes? These complexes are difficult to begin with (and most simply aren't worth doing I'm talking to you provincial HQ) with a dedicated brick tank. Changing targets means that it's going to be pretty nearly impossible to do these complexes. I get the point is to make shooting red crosses a little more difficult, but this is just stupid beyond reason.


The standard answer from CCP on this topic seems to be "If you want to do it, you'll find a way" although at least they disabled the AI on the Torp Tower for the 10/10's.

If you're unable to do that, you may want to test it and let CCP know your results... or find something else to do? We're getting ever closer to the end of the testing window so there's not much more room for feedback (not that we've seen much of a result from our feedback.
Singira
Heffalumps and Woozles.
#371 - 2012-10-27 21:28:09 UTC
Risien Drogonne wrote:
Vatek wrote:


It's not fair that a frigate designed specifically to kill battleships can, in fact, kill battleships?

That's a misrepresentation of both this debate and my position in it and you know it. The ship in question needs the DPS of the rats in order to break the battleship's tank, so it is not, in fact, "designed to kill battleships"... at least not THIS battleship. It's designed to hold battleships and help kill them. BIG difference.


I have engaged and killed plenty of rattingships (both BC and BS) without the aid of rats in my bombers and killed them.
This is because people as Vatek points out leave huge holes in their resistance, and like he says this could be avoided by tanking your ship properly.

The point here is that having the rats help the ratter by acting as bodyguard because agro-generation for an item that is useless in PvE regards is out of proportion..
Especially considering the frig/bomber does nothing to the rats, but instead the ratter..

This is wrong, they should not prioritize the frig because he scrams the ratter as it has no bearing on the rats.

The EWAR priority is supposedly to avoid people doing things like bringing TP frigs into sites to save the slots on their main ship.
It should not be to make the rats act as bodyguard for the ratter..

If anything agressing the ratter should reduce agro for the bomber due to the fact that it is doing harm to the rats current priority target and not the rats..

Remember that once the ratters ship dies, they will indeed turn on the frig/bomber as they should..
But prioritizing a target solely for the use of a certain type of hostile module on their current priority target defies logic..

Adigard
RubberDuckies
#372 - 2012-10-27 21:40:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Adigard
Singira wrote:

Remember that once the ratters ship dies, they will indeed turn on the frig/bomber as they should..
But prioritizing a target solely for the use of a certain type of hostile module on their current priority target defies logic..


This topic has been discussed before, and the general consensus is that real human pilots would kill the smaller target before their main target.

So, dunno... but I guess that logic does not work here.
Singira
Heffalumps and Woozles.
#373 - 2012-10-27 22:00:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Singira
Adigard wrote:
Singira wrote:

Remember that once the ratters ship dies, they will indeed turn on the frig/bomber as they should..
But prioritizing a target solely for the use of a certain type of hostile module on their current priority target defies logic..


This topic has been discussed before, and the general consensus is that real human pilots would kill the smaller target before their main target.

So, dunno... but I guess that logic does not work here.


General consensus does not mean it is the right thing to do.
And again, this is not real human pilots.
Real human pilots would allso have the "supertanked battleship" warpscrambled so the bomber would not have to.
Can we then conclude that all rats should warpscramble from now on?
This would work fine too, as the bomber then no longer would have the need to use this module on the ratter.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#374 - 2012-10-27 22:11:58 UTC
Dregol wrote:
Are you scaling back the difficulty of the Blood Raider high end complexes to compensate for the AI changes? These complexes are difficult to begin with (and most simply aren't worth doing I'm talking to you provincial HQ) with a dedicated brick tank. Changing targets means that it's going to be pretty nearly impossible to do these complexes. I get the point is to make shooting red crosses a little more difficult, but this is just stupid beyond reason.


Have faith. As was stated in a post above, CCP recognized that null sec income would be nerfed, and has removed the new AI for plex structures.

However, as designed, high sec "enjoys" the full nerf effect of the AI.

And the beauty of the new AI design is that if it is still impacting null sec income too much, CCP can introduce separate sliders that control AI aggressiveness, one that is toned right down for null sec, and one cranked up to max for high sec.
Adigard
RubberDuckies
#375 - 2012-10-27 22:29:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Adigard
Singira wrote:
Adigard wrote:
Singira wrote:

Remember that once the ratters ship dies, they will indeed turn on the frig/bomber as they should..
But prioritizing a target solely for the use of a certain type of hostile module on their current priority target defies logic..


This topic has been discussed before, and the general consensus is that real human pilots would kill the smaller target before their main target.

So, dunno... but I guess that logic does not work here.


General consensus does not mean it is the right thing to do.
And again, this is not real human pilots.
Real human pilots would allso have the "supertanked battleship" warpscrambled so the bomber would not have to.
Can we then conclude that all rats should warpscramble from now on?
This would work fine too, as the bomber then no longer would have the need to use this module on the ratter.


All I can tell you is CCP's stance... if you enjoy what you were doing, you will just have to work harder to find a way to do it.

Current testing certainly proves that, if you warp in on a null bear running a mission all he has to do is wait until all the Frigates swap to your Stealth Bomber and you go pop pretty fast. CCP FoxFour had suggested up-shipping into something larger so at least you share aggro with the ratter in a ship with the same sig radius.

Conversely you can hope they 'rescue' you with whatever this current thing is they're trying, but I expect once you bring EWar into the picture you're doomed.
Mund Richard
#376 - 2012-10-28 00:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mund Richard
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
[quote=Dregol]And the beauty of the new AI design is that if it is still impacting null sec income too much, CCP can introduce separate sliders that control AI aggressiveness, one that is toned right down for null sec, and one cranked up to max for high sec.

Well, if you want to be like that again, here is another bone to gnaw upon:
In FW, the rats should still attack the hostile ship pointing/dpsing players, else they could be still speed tanked.
Moar sliders! Moar AIs! Roll

Ok, joke aside, I'm rooting for one AI managing all this properly, without breaking anything.

Back to the SB part, rats aren't players, but I don't mind frigs choosing the target most appropriate to their signature tbh. You are nontheless an invader.
Ooor, if they don't, I expect my light drones not to get popped BEFORE they start nuking their first target. Pretty please?

"We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Stacking penalty for NPC EWAR then? Lock range under 9km from over 100 in a BS is not fun. Nor is two NPC web drones making me crawl 10m/s. PvP SW-900 x5: 75m/s.

Adigard
RubberDuckies
#377 - 2012-10-28 12:45:18 UTC
Mund Richard wrote:

Ok, joke aside, I'm rooting for one AI managing all this properly, without breaking anything.


I'm rooting for the faction police to become even more of a joke, because if you happen to miss warping off before they w.scram you, now you can just sac a flight of light drones and get away.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#378 - 2012-10-28 23:34:52 UTC
Tracking disruptors used by NPC not showing up on overview nor on the HUD.
Only way to tell it is happening is to mouse-over the guns. and see the modified range.

I was running Level 4 Sansha Vengeance, and it made the mission impossible to do in a Vargur, since I did not know what NPC's were TD'ing me.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#379 - 2012-10-29 05:26:41 UTC
Have run several missions in a Vargur, but giving up.
I have run my missions in an Ishtar, and detailed the problems with this mess of an AI with that ship.

And now testing the the Vargur, which is a is a complete disaster in missions that have TD'ing NPC's with the new AI in place.

I have PERFECT gunnery support skills.
When I am not being TD'ed, with the current setup of 2 tracking enhancers, I have a an optimal of 3900 m, and with first falloff, a range of 62 km. I am also Marauder IV, so good tracking with this ship.

I have already posted yet another idiotic bug I found: The TD effect does not show up, so I have no idea which ships are TD'ing me.

This is kind of important, since I am running L4 Sansha The Blockade.
With the 2nd spawn, I am am down to a range of 373 m and with falloff 6022 m. Given that most ships orbit at 12 km or more, kind of tough to kill anything until some TD ships are dead.

Of course, with the new AI, once the AI is "fixed", drones are dead before they can attack said TD ships, and drones are the only thing that can do damage since the guns are TD'ed. Currently there is a huge hole in the AI, but I am sure the dev's are scrambling to fix this.

So the ship is useless.

Of course, this was always the plan.
Soundwave in his Ten Ton Hammer interview at Fanfest, stated he wanted a 10% decrease in high sec mission income.
Well, he gets his wish, and then some. This was ALWAYS the agenda of a certain element within CCP, who are allied with the null sec zealots.

Why don't you guys at CCP have the guts to say "we hate high sec, it was a mistake to create it in the beginning, and we are intent on wiping it out, so you high sec players just move or quit".
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#380 - 2012-10-29 06:00:35 UTC
I lol'ed at the previous post.

Yes, because these changes won't affect nullsec ratters in the slightest :rolleyes: