These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
nat longshot
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#121 - 2012-10-03 17:28:31 UTC
Capqu wrote:
Arcin Hamir wrote:
Capqu wrote:
War Kitten wrote:


Exactly.

You are not "apparently on their side", you are a hostile in their space too. And you're a damn easy target. You'll die fast and first.

Goodbye.

(And I hunt the nullsec ratters myself - but nice try assuming I was the carebear :) )


I see at this point you are trying to overwhelm me with stupidity, so I'll just take your opinion into account and ask that you don't post further. Appreciate it.


I an afraid you are majoring on the stupidity side of things - basically your moan boils down to wanting your pvp being as risk free as possible - suck it up and try actual combat for a change


If you don't count awoxing, mission flipping, ninja salvaging and ratter hunting as "actual combat" that's fine, but are you saying they have no place in the game?


It will still part of the game in the end cry baby. But it will be making things harders for the person going after the npc's as it makes all those thing you just said greater in risk for you as well.

Btw changing targets like they going to do is about right for combat if you cant kill whats knocking out your plex and something new come's into site and looks easyer to kill you change targets and go for the new target and hope its a easyer kill before the harder target kills you.

Go's along the line of "if iam going down iam taking someone with me and if target 1 is not kill able and target 2 is easy kill ill kill target 2 before i go down." Deal with it sonny you play style just got harder so probing to messing with people fighter npc just got harder for you and the other player.

Welcome to what ccp has said you what better reward you have to take the higher risk for said reward.

 [13:12:18] CCP Punkturis nat longshot you're a cutie.. OH YAH I WIN!!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#122 - 2012-10-03 17:30:05 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


And yet this is exactly what you are asking for. For the game mechanics continue to offer false and somewhat nonsensical protection for the person looking for ganks.


That's nonsense. The ratter has the "protection" of local under any conditions. The "ganker" is already at a disadvantage as soon as he jumps in.

This change adds actual physical protection to that, in NULL SEC, it shifts the balance far to much to the defender, making it easier to even bad pilts to escape death. This kind of physical protection only belongs in high sec.

Not really understanding why people like you are so hot on this idea when there are plenty of us giving plenty of reasons why it (as presented, in it's current form) is not a good thing for the overall game. Sure I benefit from it (I don't WANT to lose my Mach or Tengu in a sanctum lol) and can adapt readily, but I'd hope the game makers would just be smarter than this.


Then understand this.

I have a character that made (and occasionally still does) quite a hobby out of jumping ratters of various types in Null solo in a stealth bomber. He has done this litterally for years.

I'm not concerned about these changes.... interested yes, but not concerned. I'll test them out when they become available for serious testing on the test server, I'll give constructive feed back, I'll try various tactics and different methodogy as necessary, and we'll see how this all shakes out.

Thats kind of the point to having a test server.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#123 - 2012-10-03 17:32:27 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Spc One wrote:
I will tell you what will happen, people will stop doing missions and go for incursions and wormholes.
Why ? because in the end it doesn't matter what you do missions anomalies incursions or wormholes.

Why not do incursions for example when you can get more isk than in missions ?

So missions will not be done anymore everyone will do incursions.
Roll

Because if you read the thread/dev blog/tested for yourself, you'd see that they're not changing NPC abilities (tank, numbers, firepower). They're only changing NPC behavior. So good luck taking your meta-fit CNR into a vanguard alone. Or for that matter, any type of wormhole. I'm sure that high-sec mission bears just can't wait to take their crap into an environment equivalent to a prison shower with mandatory blindfolds.

No, this change will in fact drastically increase mission-running, because now the runners will have near-immunity to ninja salvagers and flip baiters. It's the other side of the coin to the death sentences for petty thieves they have planned in Crimewatch, since mission areas are usually devoid of any players except the mission runners themselves. High-sec pvp immunity is the goal here. Solo stealth bomber pvp in null is just an unfortunate casualty.


The bad thing is that some people can't see what you obviously can.

The worse thing is some people can and are supporting the ideas of the change out of narrow self interest.

I simply object to the unintended consequences of the change. As currently proposed It's an anti-PVP change across the board (in null sec against light tackle, andin high sec against ninjas/flippers ect ect. EVE shouldn't have anti-pvp changes.

So no to "NULLCORD"
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#124 - 2012-10-03 17:38:23 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:

My input will come after the changes are live long enough to properly try various scenarios to deal with the changes, not after a quickie check to see if the old ways still work the same.

I'll remind you, WE are not the one's panicing over this. Instead we are willing to acknowledge the common sense behind the changes and work with CCP to impliment it in a way that does not negatively affect the game "as a whole".


The part I bolded is the time when it's pretty much too late.

And no one is panicking, we just recognize a bad way of doing things when we see it, and don't want the company we're customers of to keep doing tings this way, which they then have to go back and "fix".

I'll ask again, why is this so bloody hard to understand? I'm not against change I'm against Waste, and change just to be able to say "we changed something".


This is hilariously inaccurate.

Have you ever actually participated in testing on the test server? Do you realize how frequently things tend to be tweaked and fiddled with on it based on the feed back we give them?

Worst case scenario, everything you fear comes true and solo ratter ganking needs to change to a tag team event where the goal is to keep the ratter pointed and survive long enough for your beefier partner to come in and assume point and compete the gank. In fact, if you'll notice, this is exactly the scenario that the dev's played out successfully as mentioned in the post referenced in the OP.

Is that really beyond your skill set?

Really?

Yeah, you guys actually are running in a blind panic before proper testing has started in any meaningful way. Until people have had a chance to work with this awhile the only real support you are going to get is from the local forum trolls feeding on your fear.

Relax, observe, test... we'll go from there.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#125 - 2012-10-03 17:40:17 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
1: It's a game mechanic. My point was rationalizing it is by far of secondary importance to overall game play.

Well whoop-dee, that's kind of our point too! Amazing how that works, don't it?

Ranger 1 wrote:
2: If we are going to rationalize it anyway I can't begin to describe to you how many times a 3rd party has jumped into a null sec battle (large or small) and ended up getting kill right away despite the fact that he starts shooting the other guy.

He is not an ally, he is competition.

Don't strawman me; I don't care about null sec battles. We have a very specific scenario we're trying to address with this thread. That scenario is a ratter in a large ship fighting NPC frigates, while a player-flown stealth bomber enters the field as a third party. If you're going to say that as a frigate pilot who has an advantage against the stealth bomber, but is currently dying to the ratter, you would switch targets to the stealth bomber, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply going to dismiss you as an imbecile.

Ranger 1 wrote:
if you want to put it in a silly RP perspective, those pirates have orders to kill anyone not of their faction that enters the area... and that is exactly what they should do.

Yes, but I really doubt those orders include a clause that mandates the pirates to lose their lives before they can kill the intruders. Reread that whole thing about common sense in basic combat tactics bit.

Ranger 1 wrote:
Your line of reasoning on this is silly beyond all description on all levels, and is simply an obvious desperate attempt to support the argument of "Things need to be more challenging for everyone else BUT ME".

I don't solo-roam in bombers, nor do I ninja salvage/bait. I do call out ****** changes when I see them, though.

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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#126 - 2012-10-03 17:40:39 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


And yet this is exactly what you are asking for. For the game mechanics continue to offer false and somewhat nonsensical protection for the person looking for ganks.


That's nonsense. The ratter has the "protection" of local under any conditions. The "ganker" is already at a disadvantage as soon as he jumps in.

This change adds actual physical protection to that, in NULL SEC, it shifts the balance far to much to the defender, making it easier to even bad pilts to escape death. This kind of physical protection only belongs in high sec.

Not really understanding why people like you are so hot on this idea when there are plenty of us giving plenty of reasons why it (as presented, in it's current form) is not a good thing for the overall game. Sure I benefit from it (I don't WANT to lose my Mach or Tengu in a sanctum lol) and can adapt readily, but I'd hope the game makers would just be smarter than this.


Then understand this.

I have a character that made (and occasionally still does) quite a hobby out of jumping ratters of various types in Null solo in a stealth bomber. He has done this litterally for years.

I'm not concerned about these changes.... interested yes, but not concerned. I'll test them out when they become available for serious testing on the test server, I'll give constructive feed back, I'll try various tactics and different methodogy as necessary, and we'll see how this all shakes out.

Thats kind of the point to having a test server.



And will you have the guts to come here and say "I tested it, it was bad, I was wrong"?

We're giving constructive feedback. For example in the threads CCP FoxFour linked, some have suggested perhaps tying aggro in null to standings to the npcs, which would mean the Npc slaughtering ratter would be more likely to catch most of the aggro. others of us have suggest just which missions or plexes to test.

They IDEA isn't terrible, it's just being done in a way that has very high chances of causing problems (ie tacking new AI onto old content not designed for it). We are advising caution.

But some of you people aren't, you're just going all "oh this is great, take that gankers/can flippers/ninja salvagers".. you're not looking at the big picture, and that leads to giving CCP bad feedback .....on something you personally haven't spent a second testing.

As customers, we have what I think is a moral obligation (to ourselves if no one else) to give good advice to the makers of our game when they ask for it (which is what they are doing by asking for feedback), and many of you are failing at that simple thing. Not becase you disagree with me, because you have no real basis for your opinon, unlike those of us who actually tried to test it and who actually participate/play the content they are trying to change.
Piugattuk
Litla Sundlaugin
#127 - 2012-10-03 17:41:15 UTC
Wouldn't this bring more people to 0.0 thus more pvp fun? Sure rats might aggro you but if you have corp mates then a single ratter doesn't stand a chance anyway with this change it gives situation a "chance" outcome rather then in favor of pvp'er getting free lunch, fair i would say.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#128 - 2012-10-03 17:43:40 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:

I don't solo-roam in bombers, nor do I ninja salvage/bait. I do call out ****** changes when I see them, though.


Well said, and the Ranger's of the world will never get it I'm afraid. We'll just have to prove it when they get around to putting the test server up.

i'm still gonna book mark some of these replies, to be trotted out sometime in mid December or January when ccp announce in a dev blog their going to back and take a look at the recent changes made to NPC AI due to certain "unforeseeable issues" :) .
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#129 - 2012-10-03 17:48:29 UTC
Piugattuk wrote:
Wouldn't this bring more people to 0.0 thus more pvp fun? Sure rats might aggro you but if you have corp mates then a single ratter doesn't stand a chance anyway with this change it gives situation a "chance" outcome rather then in favor of pvp'er getting free lunch, fair i would say.


Sure, that could happen. More people ratting in the new "safety" of null sec means MUCh more isk being pumped into the economy though, because anoms (for example) are liquid isk, no LP to sink isk out of the economy.

I dunno but it doesn't seem like eve needs more liquid isk lol.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#130 - 2012-10-03 17:50:06 UTC
I like how they're saying "well you're gonna have to bring two people to take out the baddie ratter now." As if that's exactly what this game needs: less people who have the testicular fortitude to go out and preserve the critically endangered species that is solo pvp, and more blobs. The troopers fighting the good fight are out in force today it seems.

And what's up with that "I'll worry about it after it's in TQ" attitude? Do you worry about your president's policies after he's elected, too?

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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#131 - 2012-10-03 17:53:51 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I like how they're saying "well you're gonna have to bring two people to take out the baddie ratter now."
And yet no one is saying the Ratter should have to bring 2 people to do his Sanctum/Haven/Forsaken Hub lol.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#132 - 2012-10-03 17:55:06 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
1: It's a game mechanic. My point was rationalizing it is by far of secondary importance to overall game play.

Well whoop-dee, that's kind of our point too! Amazing how that works, don't it?

Ranger 1 wrote:
2: If we are going to rationalize it anyway I can't begin to describe to you how many times a 3rd party has jumped into a null sec battle (large or small) and ended up getting kill right away despite the fact that he starts shooting the other guy.

He is not an ally, he is competition.

Don't strawman me; I don't care about null sec battles. We have a very specific scenario we're trying to address with this thread. That scenario is a ratter in a large ship fighting NPC frigates, while a player-flown stealth bomber enters the field as a third party. If you're going to say that as a frigate pilot who has an advantage against the stealth bomber, but is currently dying to the ratter, you would switch targets to the stealth bomber, I'm not going to argue with you. I'm simply going to dismiss you as an imbecile.

Ranger 1 wrote:
if you want to put it in a silly RP perspective, those pirates have orders to kill anyone not of their faction that enters the area... and that is exactly what they should do.

Yes, but I really doubt those orders include a clause that mandates the pirates to lose their lives before they can kill the intruders. Reread that whole thing about common sense in basic combat tactics bit.

Ranger 1 wrote:
Your line of reasoning on this is silly beyond all description on all levels, and is simply an obvious desperate attempt to support the argument of "Things need to be more challenging for everyone else BUT ME".

I don't solo-roam in bombers, nor do I ninja salvage/bait. I do call out ****** changes when I see them, though.

Wow, really?

So when I take the argument that you yourself started and point out that it is invalid, it's suddenly a strawman? Big smileBig smileBig smile

And then you go right back to using it again by the end of your post, nice.

Again, to play your silly game, a frigate pilot getting clobbered by the big bad ratter would absolutely switch targets to the hostile ship that is extremely vulnerable to him. Anything else would be mildly re tarded. Blink

If they were actual pilots (do try to keep in mind they aren't), their plan would be to kill ALL hostiles, othewise they would bail.

You really need to pick your argument, either argue against this based on game mechanic reasoning or on "what real pilots would do" reasoning. Stop picking whichever one you think best supports your arguments at the moment and then switching stance the moment someone points out you are incorrect.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#133 - 2012-10-03 18:01:21 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


And yet this is exactly what you are asking for. For the game mechanics continue to offer false and somewhat nonsensical protection for the person looking for ganks.


That's nonsense. The ratter has the "protection" of local under any conditions. The "ganker" is already at a disadvantage as soon as he jumps in.

This change adds actual physical protection to that, in NULL SEC, it shifts the balance far to much to the defender, making it easier to even bad pilts to escape death. This kind of physical protection only belongs in high sec.

Not really understanding why people like you are so hot on this idea when there are plenty of us giving plenty of reasons why it (as presented, in it's current form) is not a good thing for the overall game. Sure I benefit from it (I don't WANT to lose my Mach or Tengu in a sanctum lol) and can adapt readily, but I'd hope the game makers would just be smarter than this.


Then understand this.

I have a character that made (and occasionally still does) quite a hobby out of jumping ratters of various types in Null solo in a stealth bomber. He has done this litterally for years.

I'm not concerned about these changes.... interested yes, but not concerned. I'll test them out when they become available for serious testing on the test server, I'll give constructive feed back, I'll try various tactics and different methodogy as necessary, and we'll see how this all shakes out.

Thats kind of the point to having a test server.



And will you have the guts to come here and say "I tested it, it was bad, I was wrong"?

We're giving constructive feedback. For example in the threads CCP FoxFour linked, some have suggested perhaps tying aggro in null to standings to the npcs, which would mean the Npc slaughtering ratter would be more likely to catch most of the aggro. others of us have suggest just which missions or plexes to test.

They IDEA isn't terrible, it's just being done in a way that has very high chances of causing problems (ie tacking new AI onto old content not designed for it). We are advising caution.

But some of you people aren't, you're just going all "oh this is great, take that gankers/can flippers/ninja salvagers".. you're not looking at the big picture, and that leads to giving CCP bad feedback .....on something you personally haven't spent a second testing.

As customers, we have what I think is a moral obligation (to ourselves if no one else) to give good advice to the makers of our game when they ask for it (which is what they are doing by asking for feedback), and many of you are failing at that simple thing. Not becase you disagree with me, because you have no real basis for your opinon, unlike those of us who actually tried to test it and who actually participate/play the content they are trying to change.


I'll give my honest opinion, as I always do, based on observation and testing.

Modifying the chance of aggro based on standings to NPC's is a fairly good idea which I had considered suggesting myself and someone else got there first. Why would I not? The idea has merit.

That's a far cry for the squeals of rabid condemnation echoing in this thread. Intelligent testing, feed back, discussing options has been my whole point all along, but apparently you feel that anyone not blinding agreeing with your assessment is a chuckle head ratter gloating that he will soon be perfectly safe from ganks.

Wake up, or shut up.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#134 - 2012-10-03 18:02:35 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Again, to play your silly game, a frigate pilot getting clobbered by the big bad ratter would absolutely switch targets to the hostile ship that is extremely vulnerable to him. Anything else would be mildly re tarded. Blink

I'm just gonna quote this so you can't change it later. I'm sure other posters will take care of it for me. I'm tired and need to go sleep.

Good luck with the whole "they're not real players but NPCs so combat logic shouldn't apply to their behavior!" deus ex machina you have going on there.

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
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#135 - 2012-10-03 18:04:49 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I like how they're saying "well you're gonna have to bring two people to take out the baddie ratter now." As if that's exactly what this game needs: less people who have the testicular fortitude to go out and preserve the critically endangered species that is solo pvp, and more blobs. The troopers fighting the good fight are out in force today it seems.

And what's up with that "I'll worry about it after it's in TQ" attitude? Do you worry about your president's policies after he's elected, too?


What, in the hell, are you babbling about?

Nobody said worry about it once it hits TQ, except possibly in the echoing chambers of your own mind.

It's been said, repeatedly, it will need time spent in serious testing on the test server.

Try to keep up.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
nat longshot
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#136 - 2012-10-03 18:07:56 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:


And yet this is exactly what you are asking for. For the game mechanics continue to offer false and somewhat nonsensical protection for the person looking for ganks.


That's nonsense. The ratter has the "protection" of local under any conditions. The "ganker" is already at a disadvantage as soon as he jumps in.

This change adds actual physical protection to that, in NULL SEC, it shifts the balance far to much to the defender, making it easier to even bad pilts to escape death. This kind of physical protection only belongs in high sec.

Not really understanding why people like you are so hot on this idea when there are plenty of us giving plenty of reasons why it (as presented, in it's current form) is not a good thing for the overall game. Sure I benefit from it (I don't WANT to lose my Mach or Tengu in a sanctum lol) and can adapt readily, but I'd hope the game makers would just be smarter than this.


Then understand this.

I have a character that made (and occasionally still does) quite a hobby out of jumping ratters of various types in Null solo in a stealth bomber. He has done this litterally for years.

I'm not concerned about these changes.... interested yes, but not concerned. I'll test them out when they become available for serious testing on the test server, I'll give constructive feed back, I'll try various tactics and different methodogy as necessary, and we'll see how this all shakes out.

Thats kind of the point to having a test server.



And will you have the guts to come here and say "I tested it, it was bad, I was wrong"?

We're giving constructive feedback. For example in the threads CCP FoxFour linked, some have suggested perhaps tying aggro in null to standings to the npcs, which would mean the Npc slaughtering ratter would be more likely to catch most of the aggro. others of us have suggest just which missions or plexes to test.

They IDEA isn't terrible, it's just being done in a way that has very high chances of causing problems (ie tacking new AI onto old content not designed for it). We are advising caution.

But some of you people aren't, you're just going all "oh this is great, take that gankers/can flippers/ninja salvagers".. you're not looking at the big picture, and that leads to giving CCP bad feedback .....on something you personally haven't spent a second testing.

As customers, we have what I think is a moral obligation (to ourselves if no one else) to give good advice to the makers of our game when they ask for it (which is what they are doing by asking for feedback), and many of you are failing at that simple thing. Not becase you disagree with me, because you have no real basis for your opinon, unlike those of us who actually tried to test it and who actually participate/play the content they are trying to change.


I'll give my honest opinion, as I always do, based on observation and testing.

Modifying the chance of aggro based on standings to NPC's is a fairly good idea which I had considered suggesting myself and someone else got there first. Why would I not? The idea has merit.

That's a far cry for the squeals of rabid condemnation echoing in this thread. Intelligent testing, feed back, discussing options has been my whole point all along, but apparently you feel that anyone not blinding agreeing with your assessment is a chuckle head ratter gloating that he will soon be perfectly safe from ganks.

Wake up, or shut up.


Modifying the chance of aggro based on standings to NPC's is a fairly good idea which I had considered suggesting myself and someone else got there first. Why would I not? The idea has merit.

I'am ok with this idea given i have a -10 standing with Angels and other npc then yes if iam running a angel mission they should really really hate me over say some that has good standings with angels. Then yes the npcs should target me more if they dislike me that much. Now that opens the whole can of those with great standing with angels doing the whole ninja sal mission fliping thing but if they worked there standing to were npc wont attack them in another players mission good for them.

I'am ok with that idea.

 [13:12:18] CCP Punkturis nat longshot you're a cutie.. OH YAH I WIN!!
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#137 - 2012-10-03 18:08:46 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Again, to play your silly game, a frigate pilot getting clobbered by the big bad ratter would absolutely switch targets to the hostile ship that is extremely vulnerable to him. Anything else would be mildly re tarded. Blink

I'm just gonna quote this so you can't change it later. I'm sure other posters will take care of it for me. I'm tired and need to go sleep.

Good luck with the whole "they're not real players but NPCs so combat logic shouldn't apply to their behavior!" deus ex machina you have going on there.


Please do.

And when you try to explain that a pilot should keep shooting a ship he can't hope to significantly hurt instead of going after another hostile ship he could easily destroy, make sure you let me know. I like a good laugh as much as the next guy.

You'll have to explain your combat strategy to the rest of the FC's in the game. Apparently they are doing it wrong. Big smileBig smileBig smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#138 - 2012-10-03 18:12:30 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Again, to play your silly game, a frigate pilot getting clobbered by the big bad ratter would absolutely switch targets to the hostile ship that is extremely vulnerable to him. Anything else would be mildly re tarded. Blink

I'm just gonna quote this so you can't change it later. I'm sure other posters will take care of it for me. I'm tired and need to go sleep.

Good luck with the whole "they're not real players but NPCs so combat logic shouldn't apply to their behavior!" deus ex machina you have going on there.


Please do.

And when you try to explain that a pilot should keep shooting a ship he can't hope to significantly hurt instead of going after another hostile ship he could easily destroy, make sure you let me know. I like a good laugh as much as the next guy.

You'll have to explain your combat strategy to the rest of the FC's in the game. Apparently they are doing it wrong. Big smileBig smileBig smile

Let's try this again. Together this time. Ready? The stealth bomber that comes in is shooting the ratter. It isn't shooting the frigate. It isn't hostile to the frigate from the frigate's immediate perspective. The stealth bomber is attacking the ratter who is in the process of destroying the frigate.

The only thing the frigate should be shooting at the bomber in this case is fruit baskets.

Okay, tagging out for real this time now.

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
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#139 - 2012-10-03 18:26:46 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
[but apparently you feel that anyone not blinding agreeing with your assessment is a chuckle head ratter gloating that he will soon be perfectly safe from ganks.


Tell me where I said any such thing. I said people like you are not thinkning about this critically, and you aren't, you just seem really happy to proclaim the way this is happening as a good idea. It's generally not, and we've seen time and time and time again that CCP will change something only to have to come back to it later. We don't want that.

Quote:

Wake up, or shut up.


lol, You formed an opinion about something that you haven't even tested a LITTLE bit (unlike me), but I'm the one that needs to "wake up". Thats really priceless. why haven't you waited till you can test it to post about it?

I know it's hard to man up and admit when you are wrong, but you should try it, it'll make you feel better, and let you out of the ignorant corner your uninformed opinion you just painted yourself into lol.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#140 - 2012-10-03 18:30:47 UTC
OP,

It would seem that Foxfour is talking specifically to you in this excerpt from one of the posts you linked:

CCP FoxFour wrote:
Null sec ganks of people running PvE content. This does have an effect on that no doubt. To be honest yes this means you will no longer be able to do this solo in a stealth bomber. I however just tested it and was able to tank six frigate NPC in my nemesis long enough for another character to jump into the system and warp 73au. I might be wrong but with the amount of EWAR that comes from frigates, and their hatred of drones, most people usually shoot them first when running these. The cruisers and BS never even looked at my Nemesis while I ganked the Raven. I also made sure the Raven was only running local tank so as not to generate any extra threat. If you want to be able to gank these guys solo, then yes it is going to mean you will need to bring something bigger. If there are a lot of frigate NPC on the field, well that will be difficult. We have accepted that as OK.


"We have accepted that as OK"

They are aware of your tears. These are not unforeseen consequences.

/thread

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.