These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#61 - 2012-10-03 14:30:17 UTC
War Kitten wrote:


Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter?


So you don't think Guristas watch CNN?

If NPCs were real people, they'd warp out and log off everytime Jenn Aside came into their constellation, I've litterally killed hunderds of thouands of them lol.

But yea, the point is it's stupid for the NPCs to kill a ship that comes in and attacks a ship that had been slaughtering them. It would make more sense for the NPCs to POINT the new ship, kill the 1st THEN "thank" the new guy by also killing him lol.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#62 - 2012-10-03 14:34:38 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
But yea, the point is it's stupid for the NPCs to kill a ship that comes in and attacks a ship that had been slaughtering them. It would make more sense for the NPCs to POINT the new ship, kill the 1st THEN "thank" the new guy by also killing him lol.

See, there's that logic thing I warned people about on the first page.

These forums really need a rule against that sort of thing.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#63 - 2012-10-03 14:39:16 UTC
Capqu wrote:
To start with, this is a thread about the play style of finding and killing people running anomalies in null sec. If that's not something you're interested in, then I apologize for tricking you into my thread. The reason I am making this thread is to make more people aware of the proposed changes, since they are fairly hidden at the moment, and to bring to your attention why I think said changes are a bad idea.

So CCP are planning on upgrading the AI in anomalies and missions, which sounds great! The problem is they are planning on changing AI in such a way that will be severely detrimental to people attempting to gank people in those anomalies.
AI is being redesigned to prioritise targets based on a number of criteria, instead of just having them stay on whatever they start on. In particular, NPCs will target ships of the same class (frigates will target frigates etc) with highest priority.
For the ordinary ratter all this means is NPCs closer to drone size than the ratters ship size will go for their drones, so they'll have to either take them out first or micro drones around this fact (which is kind of cool).

What this means for people soloing in a stealth bomber specifically hunting these ratters, is your play-style is gone. CCP FoxFour has explicitly said you can no longer do this. Poof; content and play style gone.
CCP FoxFour wrote:
To be honest yes this means you will no longer be able to do this solo in a stealth bomber

I don't think it is acceptable to straight up remove a style of play and an avenue of content for no real reason. I've yet to see any major content added to the game as a result of the AI change, so I don't understand how CCP can justify this.

What this means for people who tackle ratters in interceptors with a fleet waiting nearby, the already heavily favored ratter (minimum of 20 seconds to scan down and land on grid after spiking local) now has another defense should they be bad enough to get tackled in the first place; interceptors die very, very quickly to frigate rats. The ratter can simply leave frigate rats alive, and be virtually immune to all forms of danger while they PvE their hearts out in the "danger zone" of 0.0.

To be honest, I doubt even ratters would advocate these changes to their safety. Most competent ratters know they are already basically immune to ganks if they are prudent in monitoring local, so I don't see them asking for more help in this regard. The changes are probably a positive thing for ratters overall, maybe they make missions more engaging or whatever, so don't get me wrong in that regard.

Here are the links of CCPFoxFour talking about the changes
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1994441#post1994441
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=155703&find=unread

I'm interested to see what ratters and other players think of this, since I only have the point of view of someone who's primary source of enjoyment in the game is about to be removed.

Edit: I also didn't mention people who like to roam solo in a Thrasher to do the same sort of thing the stealth bombers do. That's also dead and gone if these changes happen. Rejoice, denizens of fountain, no more of this stuff.
I should also mention that frigates are not the only thing affected by this. If you attempt to gank a carrier with battlecruisers for example, those battlecruisers are going to have to tank rats since they are closer to the rats size than the carrier is, which makes an already hard task a lot harder.


If you can't out-think and out-fly a few rats, then I have no sympathy whatsoever. Your chicken-little act is ridiculous.

Pro-tip: fit an afterburner and a hardener to your bombers Roll

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#64 - 2012-10-03 14:40:31 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

The old adaptation fallacy. Just because you can adapt to a change doesn't make it a good change.


The fallacy is your straw man here.

I didn't say it was a good change because you could adapt to it. I said it is a good change. And I said that one can adapt to it.


Which is the exact same thing. You're using "adapt" as a crutch.


No, it isn't, and I'm not.

I'm merely telling the OP to adapt. It has nothing to do with whether the change is a good idea.

Quote:
And yet people like you call it a good change on the sole idea that some stealthbomber dude won't get easy kills?


Again, no. Your reasoning skills are failing you.

The OP claimed it was a bad idea because his stealth bomber kills would go away. I said it is not a bad idea because of that. "Not a bad idea because..." is not the same thing as "it is a good idea because...".

I'll simplify it for you though. Here is why I think it is a good idea:

The change is a good idea because NPC content is stupidly easy to game right now. Send in the tank (speed, range, rep or buffer), then send in the glass cannons. Poof, content completed. The only risk to the glass cannons would be a new spawn wave, and that is avoidable. Intelligent NPCs would at least go after the high DPS/low tank ships or the logi ships and reduce those threats to themselves.

We don't need new content phased and old phased out when the existing content just needs to be smarter.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#65 - 2012-10-03 14:46:18 UTC
Myelinated wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

So what you're saying is, when faced with certain death, you would immediately switch to the new, objectively weaker target if one appeared, and help the enemy who is about to finish you off kill the new challenger? You would not instead take your chances with the third party, and work together with him at least until your current threat is eliminated, even if you know that third party is hostile to you? Am I reading that right?


Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter? And then another pod-pilot in a small ship thinks he can take on that nigh-invicible ratter? Clearly the small ship is the superior force that needs to be eliminated rapidly. He's not objectively weaker, he's a glass cannon - only a threat for as long as he's allowed to exist on the field. Most small gang FC's call them primary in the absence of any communicated desire to work together.


Yes, fcs will tell everyone to switch targets from a lone faction fitted battleship or tier 3 cruiser to target a single frigate who isn't aggressed.

You're an idiot.


I was speaking in generalities about a glass cannon versus hard to kill target.

In your example, yes every good FC would ignore that potential cyno frigate and let it happily exist in the middle of a battle.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#66 - 2012-10-03 14:46:23 UTC
To be fair, even the Sleeper AI is a joke. Beating it is just a matter of routine. The main way CCP increases the difficulty of higher-end content is by increasing dps and e-war.

If they wanted to implement even a shred of authentic difficulty, they would have long ago randomized spawns so that at the very least people wouldn't be able to find out exactly what they will fight, how much of it, the ranges at which it will aggro, its resistances, etc etc with just one google search.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#67 - 2012-10-03 14:48:53 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
Myelinated wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

So what you're saying is, when faced with certain death, you would immediately switch to the new, objectively weaker target if one appeared, and help the enemy who is about to finish you off kill the new challenger? You would not instead take your chances with the third party, and work together with him at least until your current threat is eliminated, even if you know that third party is hostile to you? Am I reading that right?


Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter? And then another pod-pilot in a small ship thinks he can take on that nigh-invicible ratter? Clearly the small ship is the superior force that needs to be eliminated rapidly. He's not objectively weaker, he's a glass cannon - only a threat for as long as he's allowed to exist on the field. Most small gang FC's call them primary in the absence of any communicated desire to work together.


Yes, fcs will tell everyone to switch targets from a lone faction fitted battleship or tier 3 cruiser to target a single frigate who isn't aggressed.

You're an idiot.


I was speaking in generalities about a glass cannon versus hard to kill target.

In your example, yes every good FC would ignore that potential cyno frigate and let it happily exist in the middle of a battle.

If the stealth bomber is the cyno frigate, then he would stay cloaked until he is ready to light it, instead of deciding to throw down on two different parties that are already aggressed upon each other.

No, seriously, who are these "good FCs" you speak of?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#68 - 2012-10-03 14:53:01 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

So what you're saying is, when faced with certain death, you would immediately switch to the new, objectively weaker target if one appeared, and help the enemy who is about to finish you off kill the new challenger? You would not instead take your chances with the third party, and work together with him at least until your current threat is eliminated, even if you know that third party is hostile to you? Am I reading that right?


Wait, you're saying the NPCs know they are faced with certain death from one ratter? And then another pod-pilot in a small ship thinks he can take on that nigh-invicible ratter? Clearly the small ship is the superior force that needs to be eliminated rapidly. He's not objectively weaker, he's a glass cannon - only a threat for as long as he's allowed to exist on the field. Most small gang FC's call them primary in the absence of any communicated desire to work together.

Yes, let's clearly ignore the fact that different ships have different roles and abilities, and that with the existence of whatever internet they have 20,000 years from now, that Guristas frigate cappin' probably knows what a Hound is and does.

I don't know what kind of FCs you've had in your EVE experience, but none of mine have ever prioritized a stealth bomber over a massive murderball of drones and death while leading a frigate gang.

Edit: Actually, you know what this proves? You have no comprehension of EVE combat mechanics, but still deem yourself fit to dictate development policy. What does that make you?


OK, yeah yeah, they wouldn't "primary" a stealth bomber. But in my experience they wouldn't leave it on the field either. Someone would be told to kill it. Every case is situational, and I was trying to speak generally.


I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#69 - 2012-10-03 14:53:56 UTC
Getting a bit off topic guys...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#70 - 2012-10-03 15:00:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
If you are going to waste brain power trying to justify a necessary game mechanic, fine, look at it this way.

That stealth bomber that shows up and starts engaging the ship the pirates are currentlly shooting is not viewed as a savior or ally, he is viewed as competition for the loot (and/or the glory of the kill).

It is entirely sensible for them to dispatch their smaller vessels to deal with you quickly to get you out of the picture, so that you don't steal (what they view as) their kill and/or their loot.

That should pretty much end this pointless line of pseudo logic.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#71 - 2012-10-03 15:01:31 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
War Kitten wrote:
Myelinated wrote:


Yes, fcs will tell everyone to switch targets from a lone faction fitted battleship or tier 3 cruiser to target a single frigate who isn't aggressed.

You're an idiot.


I was speaking in generalities about a glass cannon versus hard to kill target.

In your example, yes every good FC would ignore that potential cyno frigate and let it happily exist in the middle of a battle.

If the stealth bomber is the cyno frigate, then he would stay cloaked until he is ready to light it, instead of deciding to throw down on two different parties that are already aggressed upon each other.

No, seriously, who are these "good FCs" you speak of?


That example wasn't a stealth bomber, it was "a single frigate who isn't aggressed".

If you're keen on including random neutrals in your fights, more power to you. I think CVA flies that way.

Me, I'm shooting the idiot in the stealth bomber who thinks he can safely fight anyone in my home system.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#72 - 2012-10-03 15:06:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
War Kitten wrote:


Again, no. Your reasoning skills are failing you.


So, you demonstrate that you really don't understand what is being discussed (you could take the time to read the threads to OP posted), but it's my reasoning skills that are failing lol.

Brilliant

Quote:

The OP claimed it was a bad idea because his stealth bomber kills would go away. I said it is not a bad idea because of that. "Not a bad idea because..." is not the same thing as "it is a good idea because...".


It pretty much is, but you keep on thinking otherwise.

Quote:

I'll simplify it for you though. Here is why I think it is a good idea:

The change is a good idea because NPC content is stupidly easy to game right now. Send in the tank (speed, range, rep or buffer), then send in the glass cannons. Poof, content completed. The only risk to the glass cannons would be a new spawn wave, and that is avoidable. Intelligent NPCs would at least go after the high DPS/low tank ships or the logi ships and reduce those threats to themselves.


This change will do none of that at all. You say it's a good change because NPC AI is stupid. But the NPCs will still be stupid, just different, in fact the developer making the change said initial testing show it was EASIER to dual box Domis in a mission than it was under the old AI.

the choice is between stupid NPCs, or gameable, easy to manipulate NPCs that not only end up being no better than the stupid NPCs, but end up bieng EASIER to defeat and who unwittingly offer protection to null sec ratters who should have stayed in high sec if they wanted "protection"

Quote:

We don't need new content phased and old phased out when the existing content just needs to be smarter.


At what cost to the rest of the game?
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#73 - 2012-10-03 15:08:56 UTC
The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.

It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.

That's unacceptable in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#74 - 2012-10-03 15:11:51 UTC
Capqu wrote:
The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.

It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.

That's unacceptable in my opinion.




falsehood 1: content going away
falsehood 2: no benefit

contract me all your stuck, then you can take your opinion, and stick it up your posterior. it's predicated on two falsehoods

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
Brooks Puuntai
Solar Nexus.
#75 - 2012-10-03 15:13:01 UTC
Capqu wrote:
The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.

It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.

That's unacceptable in my opinion.


The change only ruins it, if you aren't willing to adapt.

CCP's Motto: If it isn't broken, break it. If it is broken, ignore it. Improving NPE / Dynamic New Eden
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#76 - 2012-10-03 15:14:53 UTC
Capqu wrote:
The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.

It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.

That's unacceptable in my opinion.


Perfectly said. I enjoy pve and want it to get better, but there is nothing about the way they are trying to change it that does that. Why not do it right the 1st time, good sense would dictate you don't change key things but leave other things the same in a complex system.

It just doesn't make sense, and the people supporting it aren't thinking critically about the potential downsides. Null Sec doesn't need a Concord-like presence.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#77 - 2012-10-03 15:16:59 UTC
Capqu wrote:
The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.

It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.

That's unacceptable in my opinion.

My theory is that CCP can't really rework mission AI without touching it in other places, so we get this. Their real intent here is to assist the Crimewatch changes in making missioners in empire untouchable.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Capqu
Half Empty
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#78 - 2012-10-03 15:18:55 UTC
Updated the OP with the following:

Running list of play styles negatively affected or destroyed by this change:

Solo hunting ratters in a stealth bomber
Solo hunting ratters in a destroyer
Tackling ratters in an interceptor (in particular, battleships and above, since the cruisers and below will EWAR and shoot the interceptor)
Mission flipping (even high sec rats will shoot the mission flipping frigate now)
Ninja salvaging
Awoxing (now you have to train into something that can tank the rats EWAR AND the mission runner before you can awox)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5tVbVu9Mkg
Myelinated
Triple K Mafia
#79 - 2012-10-03 15:21:16 UTC
Brooks Puuntai wrote:
Capqu wrote:
The point here is that a lot of content is going away, for no real benefit.

It doesn't matter what ridiculous logic either side applies to why the change was made, the fact is some change that barely affects what it was meant to affect also ruins several other approaches to the game.

That's unacceptable in my opinion.


The change only ruins it, if you aren't willing to adapt.


The only adaption for this change is to resort solely on awoxing, chain smoking, and other forms of blue on blue combat. Im sure you'll enjoy that if you're complaining about getting **** at by someone you can avoid.

These changes basically add the anti-frigate safety net of wormhole sites to space that has instant intel from local chat. It completely destroys the already thin window of tackling and killing ratters with frigates.

Its effect in general will make nullsec and lowsec a duller place, while making virtually no difference in the already boring pve aspect of mission running and ratting.


Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#80 - 2012-10-03 15:21:19 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
If you are going to waste brain power trying to justify a necessary game mechanic, fine, look at it this way.

That stealth bomber that shows up and starts engaging the ship the pirates are currentlly shooting is not view as a savior or ally, he is view as competition for the loot (and/or the glory of the kill).

It is entirely sensible for them to dispatch their smaller vessels to deal with you quickly to get you out of the picture, so that you don't steal (what they view as) their kill and/or their loot.

That should pretty much end this pointless line of pseudo logic.


The end result of that is that all the npcs still get killed, and the null sec ratter not only gets their loot, but some torp launchers and such from a PLAYER wreck lol.

I rat with a machariel so this change helps me in ways you can't imagine. I haven't be caught in an anom in like 4 years (in a navy raven), and I only got caught because I was pointed by 3 rats and still had one rat to go when the bad guy came in and pointed me for his gang.

Under this new mechanics, the act of pointing me may have gotten the Bad Guy point and alpha'd by some NPC frigs and destroyers, allowing me to get away to pump yet more bounty isk into the economy with the same ship. It would have been great for me, but ultimately would have sucked for the game, because ship losses are good for the game.'

This change potentially means less big ship losses in null. How can you people not see that this is a potential bad thing for the economy of the game we all enjoy?