These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Propopsed AI changes and their effect. [UPDATED]
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#181 - 2012-10-04 05:39:29 UTC
Can't wait till local gets removed or changed to WH mechanics...keep the forums entertaining CCP.Blink

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#182 - 2012-10-04 05:41:12 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Can't wait till local gets removed or changed to WH mechanics...keep the forums entertaining CCP.Blink

If they do that what ridiculous thing TM will people howl for next? Just curious. Evil

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#183 - 2012-10-04 05:43:53 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Can't wait till local gets removed or changed to WH mechanics...keep the forums entertaining CCP.Blink


hiseccers claim not to care about nullsec while clamoring for changes to nullsec?

shocking

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#184 - 2012-10-04 08:13:04 UTC
Capqu wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
And lets not forget you can simply just wait for him to kill off the small things before decloaking and engaging. Or if he's saving them until last, wait until theres just a few left, decloak, point bear, kill/tank rats, kill bear.

Capqu wrote:
Adapt? I think you missed the part where CCP FoxFour explicitly stated soloing in a stealth bomber is dead and gone. How can you adapt that?


I think you missed the part where FoxFour is simply wrong.


If you're not going to believe the person who thought out, tested and implemented these changes, then how on earth can you support them?


The reason I don't believe him is because I've spent two years in wormholes. With sleepers who change targets, and are even more aggressive and hit even harder than these changed null npcs will. Guess what? People running pve in wormholes get ganked all the time.

Also, I offered a bloody explanation of how you could work within the mechanics to do it - how about you (or foxfour, if he likes) point out the flaws in what I said? Instead of just dismissing them and crying.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#185 - 2012-10-04 08:18:55 UTC
Capqu wrote:
BoBoZoBo wrote:
I do not support this view.

Why should NPCs ignore a juicy target... you wouldn't.
Why should NPCs continue attacking targets they cannot take down... you wouldn't.
Why should NPCs help you kill something you would benefit from... you wouldn't

Not to mention, there is already an in-game precedent for this as WH hunters have to deal with this already. Maybe you just need to expand your horizons and raise the challenge bar a bit?

Besides, what after you made your kill? Do they continue to ignore you? Help you loot? It is good and immersive to have smarter AI all around that treats everyone equally. Keeps everyone on their toes.


Must be nice to be able to sit and wait for an opportune moment to attack without some sort of easily accessible intel channel letting you know exactly who is nearby.

Hunting in W-Space is very different to K-Space, so please stop drawing false parallels and misleading people.


NPCs being smarter and changing targets and what not (instead of being brainless garbage like they currently are) is not the problem though, the problem is the stupid, instant, infallible intel tool that is local. Fix the real issue rather than crying about something that in itself isn't the problem (and is in fact a vast improvement)
Golar Crexis
Donald Trump Real Estate
#186 - 2012-10-04 10:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Golar Crexis
SO to sum up the arguments against so far we have had:

1. People who have never been ganked or have never tried hunting in 0.0 trying to make some ******** argument based on RL situations.

2. People who have been ganked in 0.0 and blame us for their mistakes (we can't catch you unless you make one) supporting this cause for the extra protection if they do make a mistake.

3. People who are concerned but believe the AI changes won't affect ganking as badly as we make it out to be.
Fair enough but we are sharing the results of our testing on sisi to show people as to why we reached these conclusions. And you are free to do your own testing as well. Try tackling a carrier in a sanctum. No seriously its hilarious what happens.

4. Wormhole dwellers pointing out quite correctly that they have had to deal with this problem for a long time.
Fair enough but you have it on easy mode. Wormhole ganking isn't hard, You do not have to contend with the following:
Local
Intel channels
Jumpbridge networks allowing for the pursuing home def fleet to get ahead of us
Dead end systems where we can get camped in.

5. People who misread the OP.

So in short these are the main types of arguments for the current version of the new AI.
Our stance on the new AI is this:

The new AI is wonderful and long overdue. However ratters get an unforseen buff to their own safety simply due to the fact that the AI will swap to a target that isn't shooting it. We don't agree with that and want ccp to make sure they fully understand what they are doing before implementing this change (protip: I wouldn't trust CCP's opinion on the finer details of any matter relating to pvp and life in null-sec.)
Whisperen
Resilience.
The Initiative.
#187 - 2012-10-04 11:24:32 UTC
Solution: Give all the 0.0 rat frigates scrams/webs that way the ratter can decide to kill them first and not be tackled and the bomber/dessie/inty/dictor 's have a clear shot or the ratter can leave them have potential bomber defense and be tackled until the rats are dead.
Golar Crexis
Donald Trump Real Estate
#188 - 2012-10-04 11:44:25 UTC
Whisperen wrote:
Solution: Give all the 0.0 rat frigates scrams/webs that way the ratter can decide to kill them first and not be tackled and the bomber/dessie/inty/dictor 's have a clear shot or the ratter can leave them have potential bomber defense and be tackled until the rats are dead.


Its a good idea but a problem is most ratters actually rat in forsaken hubs where there are no frigates for precisely these reasons. perhaps they will switch over with the new AI and be at risk of being tackled but I doubt it.

You really have to try playing the game from our side to see how much **** we have to put up with already before we even get to the new AI.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#189 - 2012-10-04 12:25:50 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Can't wait till local gets removed or changed to WH mechanics...keep the forums entertaining CCP.Blink

If they do that what ridiculous thing TM will people howl for next? Just curious. Evil

Nerfing blobs is the final boss of nerfing.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#190 - 2012-10-04 12:41:43 UTC
Alexa Coates wrote:
I'm a pve mission runner and I welcome these new changes. The way I see it is that lore wise, rats finally adapted pod technology or developed their own.

All I know is, missions will be an actual challenge now, therefore fun.


That's just the thing, they won't.

They are not adjusting difficulty of missions, changing objectives or what not. The change will make npcs switch targets, period.

Go here and read CCP FoxFour's post on the matter.

The most relevant part considering your post:
CCP FoxFour wrote:


Admittedly for those that solo missions in a ship that has no drones this change means nothing at all. It has the largest impact on drone users and groups of players.


How exactly is this making anything better. The Drone Boaters (of which I am not a member, even with drone damage mods, drones are too much damn work when I can just blap stuff with my machariel) and people who like to play cooperatively (among others) will face the problem, but people like me who just dual box 2 ships capable of tanking the entire room solo won't notice a difference.

In missions and anomalies I use machariel supported byt FoF missle Tengu, the Tengu serving the same close in/point defense role as drones would, because it's more dps and I don't have to fool with EVE's HORRIBLE drone interface. So this change does zero to me.

It's still the wrong thing to do. A better thing would be make the drone interface less crap 1st THEN if you want to increase the "tedium factor" for drone users, go ahead.

On of the supposed purposes of this change is to deter AFK missioning with drones. Thing is, if it works on TQ the same way it worked on the test server, all an afk domi (for example) is going to have to change is remove one cap recharger and replace it with a ECM Burst I to keep aggro off drone through threat management and boom, "afk domi nerf" circumvented.

Still kind of amazing that so many people can't see the potential problems with this.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#191 - 2012-10-04 12:46:59 UTC
MadMuppet wrote:
I'm trying really hard to have sympathy for the gankers here, I really am, but I would rather have the new AI implemented and their concerns be address after all the PVE missioner tears clear (and they will... "WTF? My Drones!") than to delay it because of a few people being unhappy from the nerf.

I will follow that up by mentioning that I have been on the receiving ends of enough nerfs that I have almost no sympathy for anybody getting nerfed. In the past I was running back from SiSi screaming that the changes were going to cause issues and it fell on deaf ears (unified inventory). So, don't worry, they'll fix it in the long run and it wont be like the old times, but they will tell you it is.



This one wins best badpost of the thread award. So because other people didn't listen when you warned them, you stop listening to warning? That's childish IMO.

The underlined part is a big problem for me, the people cheering this proposal are actually cheering bad design thinking, inefficiency and wasted money. in other words, not being good customers, because good customers demand excellence not "well, yall can fix it later down the road I guess".

CCP should try to do it right the 1st time. Telling us "this is a change we believe in" (the DEVS own words) while then telling us how it's going to negatively affect a pvp tactic it's not meant to change, or how it's not even going to register with people who don't use drones ect ect, is very bad policy on their part.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#192 - 2012-10-04 15:02:13 UTC
Hopefully FoxFour gives us more info soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#193 - 2012-10-04 15:03:45 UTC
Whisperen wrote:
Solution: Give all the 0.0 rat frigates scrams/webs that way the ratter can decide to kill them first and not be tackled and the bomber/dessie/inty/dictor 's have a clear shot or the ratter can leave them have potential bomber defense and be tackled until the rats are dead.


I like this idea. But it would actually be a pretty significant buff to catching ratters, which may not be what CCP want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#194 - 2012-10-04 15:22:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Capqu wrote:
Hopefully FoxFour gives us more info soon.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2003211#post2003211

As we knew would happen, the DEVs in question are running into snags. This isn't an "I told you so moment", this is a "we know the game we spend thousands of hours playing, which is why we suggest caution and doing things the right way" moment.

The most likely end result of this new post from Fox is we could end up with a "hodge-podge" NPC AI situation, were some are dumb and some are smart. It would simply be better to build from the ground up for consistency (like with incursions and wormholes) if nothing else.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#195 - 2012-10-04 15:41:03 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
Golar Crexis wrote:
SO to sum up the arguments against so far we have had:

1. People who have never been ganked or have never tried hunting in 0.0 trying to make some ******** argument based on RL situations.

2. People who have been ganked in 0.0 and blame us for their mistakes (we can't catch you unless you make one) supporting this cause for the extra protection if they do make a mistake.

3. People who are concerned but believe the AI changes won't affect ganking as badly as we make it out to be.
Fair enough but we are sharing the results of our testing on sisi to show people as to why we reached these conclusions. And you are free to do your own testing as well. Try tackling a carrier in a sanctum. No seriously its hilarious what happens.

4. Wormhole dwellers pointing out quite correctly that they have had to deal with this problem for a long time.
Fair enough but you have it on easy mode. Wormhole ganking isn't hard, You do not have to contend with the following:
Local
Intel channels
Jumpbridge networks allowing for the pursuing home def fleet to get ahead of us
Dead end systems where we can get camped in.

5. People who misread the OP.

So in short these are the main types of arguments for the current version of the new AI.
Our stance on the new AI is this:

The new AI is wonderful and long overdue. However ratters get an unforseen buff to their own safety simply due to the fact that the AI will swap to a target that isn't shooting it. We don't agree with that and want ccp to make sure they fully understand what they are doing before implementing this change (protip: I wouldn't trust CCP's opinion on the finer details of any matter relating to pvp and life in null-sec.)


Stopped paying attention when you claimed wormhole PVP was "easy mode".

NPCs switching targets is not a problem at all - or at least, in and of itself it isn't. If other mechanics (cough local cough) are problematic then this may highlight it a bit more, but you can't demand the current awful, useless NPC mechanics stay awful and useless as a result of that, that's just silly

I can't believe the 1337 NULL PVP PROS are crying over a god damn npc frigate ruining their ability for 1337 NULL PVP ACTION.

Edit: Actually, whats the point in even arguing. CCP have made it very, very clear that they're turning this into Hello Kitty Online. Failwatch, miner buff, and more. By winter 2014 all PVE will be instanced and only corp members can access those pockets of space.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#196 - 2012-10-04 15:55:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Capqu
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

Edit: Actually, whats the point in even arguing. CCP have made it very, very clear that they're turning this into Hello Kitty Online. Failwatch, miner buff, and more. By winter 2014 all PVE will be instanced and only corp members can access those pockets of space.


If you have this view, why are you arguing for making null sec ratting safer? I agree that WH PVE is harder than K space PVE, but an AI change is not going to change that, or indeed make K space PVE harder in the majority of cases. All it does for the average ratter (read: solo tengu/drake without drones out) is make the ratter more likely to survive being tackled, a situation they had ample time to avoid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#197 - 2012-10-04 16:34:03 UTC
Capqu wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:

Edit: Actually, whats the point in even arguing. CCP have made it very, very clear that they're turning this into Hello Kitty Online. Failwatch, miner buff, and more. By winter 2014 all PVE will be instanced and only corp members can access those pockets of space.


If you have this view, why are you arguing for making null sec ratting safer? I agree that WH PVE is harder than K space PVE, but an AI change is not going to change that, or indeed make K space PVE harder in the majority of cases. All it does for the average ratter (read: solo tengu/drake without drones out) is make the ratter more likely to survive being tackled, a situation they had ample time to avoid.


And yet either no one can see that coming, or no one cares lol.

I've used a tactic in The MAZE to protect myself while doing it, leaving some scram rats and all the battleships in the 1st 2 rooms. That lus the difficulty of someone who doesn't PVE finding the right gate to begin with as a nice "shield" for my ships in the 5th room, and more than once i noticed a new player ship wreck on scan. It let me basically ignore probes on my scanner, so what if they find me, the Guristas will protect me lol.

This new AI proposal potentially spreads that to ALL null and even low sec complexes that don't require you to kill everything to unlock a gate (and there are a few plexes like that). It even makes anomalies safer.

I simply don't think "Nullcord" is a good idea. I've been ratting in null with the same mach and 2 tengus set up for 2 years, haven't lost a single ship, null is already easy to survive in if you stay at the keyboard, this adding another layer of protection is not really called for.
S'No Flake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#198 - 2012-10-04 20:10:08 UTC
Golar Crexis wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Site ganks in WHs happen ALL the time and sleepers have always have this kind of AI so I don't see this as much of an issue.


Yeah.....

Let me just highlight the part I found most relevant.

So while I respect wormholers and the hijinks they get up to, I believe you guys have it easy. No Local, no intel channels and no jumpbridges for that home def fleet chasing you.

But hey thanks for posting man.


Heh... you know.. is not that easy in a WH as you make it look like :)
Golar Crexis
Donald Trump Real Estate
#199 - 2012-10-04 22:52:07 UTC
S'No Flake wrote:
Golar Crexis wrote:
Jack Miton wrote:
Site ganks in WHs happen ALL the time and sleepers have always have this kind of AI so I don't see this as much of an issue.


Yeah.....

Let me just highlight the part I found most relevant.

So while I respect wormholers and the hijinks they get up to, I believe you guys have it easy. No Local, no intel channels and no jumpbridges for that home def fleet chasing you.

But hey thanks for posting man.


Heh... you know.. is not that easy in a WH as you make it look like :)


Yeah I know.

I honestly respect and admire wormholers and I am quite jealous of both the isk they make and the no local they get to have

I also recognize the down side of living in a pos and having to deal with that horrible horrible interface and mechanics.



I just wanted to point out that the difference between null-sec and wormholes is local and all the powerful intel tools that are available to the common ratter.

Actually just very quickly but have you ever heard of chimes in the context of eve? Since local is now compact some clever sod has made a simple program that watches your local window while you rat and immediately chimes when a red enters local, thus allowing for semi afk ratting in null-sec with incredibly reduced risk.
Zero Audier
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2012-10-05 02:28:33 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
Myelinated wrote:


1-3 bil isk Faction fit pve ship are a juicier target than a 50 mil stealth.

Wormholes don't have local as a instant intel channel, removing local from non w-space would be fine. Actually I'd very much love to see all local channels in eve function like wormhole local.

This change basically kills low sp pvp, which hurts new players most of all(you know that thing a mmo needs to stay alive)


How does this kill low-sp PVP?

Instead of bombers, use Assault Frigates, or Recon Cruisers... Or... Or..



This is the problem. Why the EVE fanbase hasen't rioted at CCP HQ for this already I duno. This change wouldn't be as bad if stealth bombers were adaptable, but they aren't. They are as the OP said, extremely luck based, while still extremely high skill capped. Its dam near impossible to kill something with them currently. Do you know the weakness of stealth bombers? Light drones, frigates, and anything that can catch up to it. So now those ratting battle cruisers that we rely on as targets are now the least of our concerns. As far as the whole, shoot at the weakest enemy, so they are just going to flat out stop shooting at this ratter, and while still getting shot at, fly towards the SB, just ignoring their original target all together? Logic is a double edged sword in this situation. How about instead of just immediately dropping everything to go shoot this new target, how about a minute or two before they switch, depending on how close the ship is to their size?