These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A High Sec Manifesto
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#301 - 2012-02-01 22:14:20 UTC
Imryn Xaran wrote:

If I have high standings with Guristas (let’s say 10.0) and take a Caldari Navy mission to eradicate a Gurista base do the rats in that mission not shoot at me? Of course they shoot at me. If they will shoot at a mission runner with high standings why wouldn’t they shoot at a PvPer with high standings? You can think up whatever RP justifications you want, but that is how it works – mission rats shoot at the first thing that enters their pocket, and will sometimes aggro the second thing as well, they just don’t switch their fire between targets.


What? Your kind of all over the place with your comments. What?

Yes if you shoot at someone they generally shoot back, no intent on changing that for NPCs.

Like it or not, EVE is a roleplaying game, I don't need to justify that. When you ask why would NPCs shoot at a mission runner with high standings and not a PvPer, you've completely missed the point. The NPCs would respond based on the actions of a player towards them and their past history (Standings) of actions towards the NPCs.

If you're out in Null space and an unknown pilot who's blue to you shows up at the same gate, you generally don't shoot at them. If you're fighting a red or neutral at a gate and blue pilot warps in you don't switch targets from the guy you're fighting to shoot at the blue. However, in any of those scenarios had the blue pilot targeted and shot at you, or assisted the red/neutral you were fighting you would have in turn attacked them.

It's not rocket science here, even a small child should be able to grasp the concept. Don't ramble on now about "that's just how it works". My post on this matter was in response to your own suggestion that Sleeper AI be applied to RATs in missions, which randomly switch targets irrespective of player actions or history.

It comes down to this, I want an immersive game world that feels alive, where player actions and choices have meaningful consequences. Not a game of themepark rides to satisfy dullards that think amassing ISK by shooting red crosses free from any meaningful choices, consequences, or interference is the height of gaming entertainment.
Karn Dulake
Doomheim
#302 - 2012-02-02 07:41:56 UTC
Nice ideas but remember its not about what they do right but the flaws in your argument as thats what people will attack

for instance

Id just sit inside you nullsec deadspace in highsec all day in a cloaked pvp ship and farm highsec mission runners all day until no one ever came in. if they were to much id remain cloaked.

this kind of stuff
I dont normally troll, but when i do i do it on General Discussion.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#303 - 2012-02-02 07:51:59 UTC
Karn Dulake wrote:
Nice ideas but remember its not about what they do right but the flaws in your argument as thats what people will attack

for instance

Id just sit inside you nullsec deadspace in highsec all day in a cloaked pvp ship and farm highsec mission runners all day until no one ever came in. if they were to much id remain cloaked.

this kind of stuff



People take risks like that just getting to the system when they do lo-sec/0.0 plexes.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
#304 - 2012-02-02 13:45:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Imryn Xaran
Xorv wrote:
Imryn Xaran wrote:

If I have high standings with Guristas (let’s say 10.0) and take a Caldari Navy mission to eradicate a Gurista base do the rats in that mission not shoot at me? Of course they shoot at me. If they will shoot at a mission runner with high standings why wouldn’t they shoot at a PvPer with high standings? You can think up whatever RP justifications you want, but that is how it works – mission rats shoot at the first thing that enters their pocket, and will sometimes aggro the second thing as well, they just don’t switch their fire between targets.


What? Your kind of all over the place with your comments. What?

Yes if you shoot at someone they generally shoot back, no intent on changing that for NPCs.

Like it or not, EVE is a roleplaying game, I don't need to justify that. When you ask why would NPCs shoot at a mission runner with high standings and not a PvPer, you've completely missed the point. The NPCs would respond based on the actions of a player towards them and their past history (Standings) of actions towards the NPCs.

If you're out in Null space and an unknown pilot who's blue to you shows up at the same gate, you generally don't shoot at them. If you're fighting a red or neutral at a gate and blue pilot warps in you don't switch targets from the guy you're fighting to shoot at the blue. However, in any of those scenarios had the blue pilot targeted and shot at you, or assisted the red/neutral you were fighting you would have in turn attacked them.

It's not rocket science here, even a small child should be able to grasp the concept. Don't ramble on now about "that's just how it works". My post on this matter was in response to your own suggestion that Sleeper AI be applied to RATs in missions, which randomly switch targets irrespective of player actions or history.

It comes down to this, I want an immersive game world that feels alive, where player actions and choices have meaningful consequences. Not a game of themepark rides to satisfy dullards that think amassing ISK by shooting red crosses free from any meaningful choices, consequences, or interference is the height of gaming entertainment.


I guess you haven't run very many missions. When you warp in to a deadspace pocket the rats will aggro you even if you don't fire at them. Sometimes you have to approach within a certain distance, but they WILL aggro you regardless of any standings you may have with their faction. That is the way it works in the majority of missions I have seen. So if a rat is going to shoot at one player regardless of standings, why would they not shoot at another player? The PvPer entering the deadspace pocket represents EXACTLY the same threat as the mission runner when looked at from the rats perspective.

An example of an RP justification for this behavior could be "The rats are ordered to guard the location, and shoot on sight anyone that turns up regardless of standings".

The fact is that mission rats DO NOT take standings into account. Don't give examples of how players interact with each other and then assume that is the way rat AI works - players can be assumed to have a significantly more complex AI than rats (lets hope so anyway).

As you said, it's not rocket science, and even a moron can work it out. If you want to comment on this subject you should at least run a few missions first.

It seems to me that the "immersive" game with "meaningful choices" and "consequences" that you want to play is to allow you to shoot at other players in a situation where you have no possible chance of losing, no risk to your own ship or fittings whatsoever, and a potential multi billion ISK payday if you are lucky. The very worst outcome for you is that your target escapes. So remind me, which one of us is the one that is amassing risk free ISK here?
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#305 - 2012-02-02 21:09:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
Imryn Xaran,

Why do you keep talking about how missions are now to justify your position, when you were the one to suggest they should be changed? Yes I know how missions work, yes I have had the displeasure of doing many of them including in NPC Null.. However, that's all irrelevant when we're talking about how they should be changed. Roll

Honestly I just think we want diametrically opposed games so little will come of discussing these topics with you, but at least have the curtsey to present actual rational arguments that I can respond to. Right now you're just wasting my time.

I am curious about posters like you though, before EVE what other MMOs did you play?
Kai Lomu
Cube Zombie Consortium
#306 - 2012-02-07 11:52:13 UTC
Couldn't find this in this topic and apologies if missed but...

... can't help wondering what would happen if members of NPC corps were restricted to using Civilian only mods and possibly ships associated with that particular faction in Hi-Sec. This is on the basis that NPC corp are a starting point for pilots and shouldn't be an end destination:

i.e. Player is in some industrial NPC corp therefore stuck with using corresponding civilian mining lasers and/or cargo expanders etc on a noob/civilian ship whilst flying that particular flag.


I think this would help encourage the general EVE transition of moving from Noob pilot to a player corp, particularly if new player experience was developed to help players set up own corp in a dynamic fashion etc. Perhaps this could also include some sort of new corp cooling off period whereby they receive somesort of extra concord protection for a limited time period and/or cannot start/be wardec'd for a finite period - say 1 month for example.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#307 - 2012-02-07 14:55:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Skippermonkey
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
One of two things needs to happen in high sec:

-No more large POS towers
-Dreadnaughts can enter highsec, but cannot fire unless in siege mode.

As it stands now, even before war exploits were deregulated (except for one...) a large POS was a tedious thing to take down in high sec and requires substantial firepower. if such a massive POS is going to be acceptable in empire space, then dreadnaughts should be as well.

I do like this idea

though, how would you get a dread to travel about hisec?

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Zixie Draco
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#308 - 2012-02-07 15:51:11 UTC
Most candidates ideas just are not feasible. Everyone knows this.


At least voting for Skippermonkey would give the council a realistic member imo.

Would you like a kitten?

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#309 - 2012-02-07 16:53:11 UTC
Zixie Draco wrote:
Most candidates ideas just are not feasible. Everyone knows this.


Hello there, Zixie. I’m a newcomer to the race, having only recently announced my candidacy, but I wanted to take a moment to invite you over to take a peek at my campaign announcement thread, and to download the platform primer that is linked there, so you can decide for yourself whether you think the ideas I vouch for are indeed feasible.

And thank you again, Malcanis, for your inspiration, wisdom, and encouragement. We may not see eye to eye on every single issue, but your forward-thinking approach to EvE problems is sorely needed on the council. If you are unable to run for office yourself this year, I will do everything in my power to see to it that common sense solutions like your own reach the ears of CCP developers should I be elected to CSM7.

It’s frustrating to read summit notes and hear so much uncertainty and debate in how to fix this or that, when the player community has already generated some of the simplest and most effective solutions to common problems facing the core of EvE’s game play.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Pheusia
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#310 - 2012-03-18 22:19:07 UTC
~Election bump~
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#311 - 2012-03-18 23:08:14 UTC
Thanks!

Here is a handy link to go straight to casting a vote for me:

http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=450

Or if you have another candidate in mind, you can click here:

http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/CandidatesView.asp?action=Vote

The important thing, either way, is that everyone gets to the polls and votes before its too late! There's only a couple days left....

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary