These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Rat aggression swaps in pvp situations.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#201 - 2015-06-28 17:02:45 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Regardless of any other factors, the days where you can warp in and neut a far larger, more capable and more expensive ship and let rats kill your target for you are done. You need to be able to survive the rigors of the space you hunt in, just like your target does.



Tbh, i dont care about that playstyle, the only thing i want is to be able to 1v1 ships in pve sites without rats ******* me over completely. And as it is right now rats are ignoreable in expensive stuff but totally **** over the "cheap and cheerfull" type of ships.

In other words, you want to be able to warp in, gank the bling fit ratter, and moonwalk out without the rats bothering you. Thanks for clarifying this.


Yes, as this is how it was supposed to work and a solution to a different problem is why it no longer does.



Umm... No.

You want to 1v1 in "cheap and cheerful" ships, feel free to go find PvE content that is appropriate to those hulls and gank those guys.

The expensive ship is *not* ignoring the PvE damage, it's fit for it. It's running an active tank that consumes a significant portion of the slots on the ship to maintain, not only from direct tank modules but also Cap fittings to sustain an active tank.

You in fact want to just let the NPC's kill your target for you, because if you are solo the odds of your cheap and cheerful frig breaking that tank are really bad. As he isn't packing Ewar of his own you can probably hold him till the server resets, but you won't be killing him solo.

It's clear that all you care about is yourself. You believe every other player should be doing nothing but providing you easy targets and entertainment because you bothered to jump in a frig and look for someone to shoot. I want a million dollars a day and an unending supply of sex programmed Scarlett Johansson clones, but I'm not getting that either.
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2015-06-28 17:52:09 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Mike Voidstar wrote:


Regardless of any other factors, the days where you can warp in and neut a far larger, more capable and more expensive ship and let rats kill your target for you are done. You need to be able to survive the rigors of the space you hunt in, just like your target does.



Tbh, i dont care about that playstyle, the only thing i want is to be able to 1v1 ships in pve sites without rats ******* me over completely. And as it is right now rats are ignoreable in expensive stuff but totally **** over the "cheap and cheerfull" type of ships.

In other words, you want to be able to warp in, gank the bling fit ratter, and moonwalk out without the rats bothering you. Thanks for clarifying this.


Yes, as this is how it was supposed to work and a solution to a different problem is why it no longer does.



Umm... No.

You want to 1v1 in "cheap and cheerful" ships, feel free to go find PvE content that is appropriate to those hulls and gank those guys.

The expensive ship is *not* ignoring the PvE damage, it's fit for it. It's running an active tank that consumes a significant portion of the slots on the ship to maintain, not only from direct tank modules but also Cap fittings to sustain an active tank.

You in fact want to just let the NPC's kill your target for you, because if you are solo the odds of your cheap and cheerful frig breaking that tank are really bad. As he isn't packing Ewar of his own you can probably hold him till the server resets, but you won't be killing him solo.

It's clear that all you care about is yourself. You believe every other player should be doing nothing but providing you easy targets and entertainment because you bothered to jump in a frig and look for someone to shoot. I want a million dollars a day and an unending supply of sex programmed Scarlett Johansson clones, but I'm not getting that either.


You have no idea of pvp do you? You dont have to do anything to kill pvers, hell you dont even have to use expensive stuff. But you cant use frigates due to the longish engagement due to lowish dps and a reliance of another type of tank. Take the confessor, you get 500dps or so in em which is enough to break pretty much all pvers given time (unless you are in sansha space) but your tank is reliant on your ab and your super small sig, stuff certain rats dont care about.

Its not actually lvl 4 missions or similar that pose a problem, its stuff like besieged sites and lvl 5s that make frigate pvp vs pveers flat out impossible due to how they work.

I dont want rats to help me i dont care about what they shoot as long as it isnt me. They should just do the logical thing and shoot what has aggro the proper way.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#203 - 2015-06-28 18:27:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
I want to remind you that you are trying to discuss f**ing with a virgin.

mike voidstar has no clue about nor has he ever been involved in any meaningful combat pvp, dont expect any level idea from him, all he knows is that you should bring a "proper ship for the job", mhkay? So the other duders in here with 3 kills in their lifetime on eve-kill are trolling you with their valuable opinion how pvp should work.
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#204 - 2015-06-28 20:27:16 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:

Yes, there is no logical reason for rats to swap on people who have ewar fitted. CCP has stated in the past that the rat aggro changes were there to prevent people from exploiting rat aggro mechanics, not for pvp reasons.

So as by your own words it makes no sense, it should be changed.


wat?

Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.

How is anything BUT that logical?
Iain Cariaba
#205 - 2015-06-28 20:31:10 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:

Yes, there is no logical reason for rats to swap on people who have ewar fitted. CCP has stated in the past that the rat aggro changes were there to prevent people from exploiting rat aggro mechanics, not for pvp reasons.

So as by your own words it makes no sense, it should be changed.


wat?

Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.

How is anything BUT that logical?

Because WOlf Crendraven says so, apparently.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#206 - 2015-06-28 20:38:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Petre en Thielles wrote:

wat?

Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.

How is anything BUT that logical?


when a ship shows up, engaging my enemy who already slayed thousands of my men, the first thing I'd think to do would be eliminating that ship first. Makes totally sense. Brains, as suggested by the devblog, those rats dont seem to have yet.
Iain Cariaba
#207 - 2015-06-28 20:58:53 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Petre en Thielles wrote:

wat?

Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.

How is anything BUT that logical?


when a ship shows up, engaging my enemy who already slayed thousands of my men, the first thing I'd think to do would be eliminating that ship first. Makes totally sense. Brains, as suggested by the devblog, those rats dont seem to have yet.

So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. Roll No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#208 - 2015-06-28 21:10:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Iain Cariaba wrote:

So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. Roll No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.


not "throwing ewar around" but "throwing ewar on the guy who already slayed thousands of mine".

there are 2 guys

1) a known mass murder and enemy
2) a neutral dude who helps me killing that enemy

target priority should be obvious, the old AI behaved properly in pvp situations in this regard.
Iain Cariaba
#209 - 2015-06-28 21:53:45 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. Roll No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.


not "throwing ewar around" but "throwing ewar on the guy who already slayed thousands of mine".

there are 2 guys

1) a known mass murder and enemy
2) a neutral dude who helps me killing that enemy

target priority should be obvious, the old AI behaved properly in pvp situations in this regard.

You're right only once here, there are, in fact, two guys, but both of them are enemies.

We're talking PIRATES here, people who live outside the law, and those groups have always held to the tenet of "Us vs. Everyone Else." There are no "neutral dude(s) who helps me killing that enemy," there is only the enemy. You are not affiliated in any way with that pirate group, so to a pirate, you would only be eliminating a competitor and getting ready to kill them next. Seeing as how you were nice enough to bring a small, easy to kill ship, it makes total sense to try and eliminate you now, when we still have the manpower, than to keep shooting the other guy and hope we have the manpower to kill you after him.

The old AI behavior you're touting was utterly broken. When it was running, rats ignored absolutly everything except the first ship on grid.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#210 - 2015-06-28 22:07:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Iain Cariaba wrote:


We're talking PIRATES here, people who live outside the law, and those groups have always held to the tenet of "Us vs. Everyone Else."

this is obviously not true, since you can for example fly missions for pirate factions. So not hostile as you would like to.

Iain Cariaba wrote:
There are no "neutral dude(s) who helps me killing that enemy," there is only the enemy. You are not affiliated in any way with that pirate group, so to a pirate, you would only be eliminating a competitor and getting ready to kill them next.

you say so? Where do you have this info from? Did you ever read eve chronicles or eve books, those say otherwise.

http://community.eveonline.com/backstory/chronicles/ is a good start.

You dont need to be affilated with anyone for differentiation between a hostile or not so hostile pilot, someone who massmurdering my people on daily basis would be far above the guy who sides with me in a certain combat situation on my targets list, thats just common sense, this is how majority of semi intelligent human population would think and act, thats a basic strategy for minimizing harm to ourselves - kill the most hostile/dangerous first, not to a score a pointless kill (not even as he would rather just run off) and get slaughtered for another 14 days non-stop. They might be pirates which doesnt mean they are brainless morons, like the new AI would suggest.
"When the top priority guy is down, we might switch to less important target", exactly as it was in old AI.


Iain Cariaba wrote:
Seeing as how you were nice enough to bring a small, easy to kill ship, it makes total sense to try and eliminate you now, when we still have the manpower, than to keep shooting the other guy and hope we have the manpower to kill you after him.

yes, because it worked so great in the previous 545 Guristas Forlorn Hubs, we better get rid of any chance of help as top priority. I understand.

Iain Cariaba wrote:

The old AI behavior you're touting was utterly broken. When it was running, rats ignored absolutly everything except the first ship on grid.
The old AI might've been broken for PvE (not aggressing drones, not agressing anything but tank ship ever) but it behaved correctly in PvP situations when switching targets doesnt make any sense, unless new guy starts assisting the other.
Iain Cariaba
#211 - 2015-06-28 22:53:15 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:


We're talking PIRATES here, people who live outside the law, and those groups have always held to the tenet of "Us vs. Everyone Else."

this is obviously not true, since you can for example fly missions for pirate factions. So not hostile as you would like to.

Iain Cariaba wrote:
There are no "neutral dude(s) who helps me killing that enemy," there is only the enemy. You are not affiliated in any way with that pirate group, so to a pirate, you would only be eliminating a competitor and getting ready to kill them next.

you say so? Where do you have this info from? Did you ever read eve chronicles or eve books, those say otherwise.

http://community.eveonline.com/backstory/chronicles/ is a good start.

You dont need to be affilated with anyone for differentiation between a hostile or not so hostile pilot, someone who massmurdering my people on daily basis would be far above the guy who sides with me in a certain combat situation on my targets list, thats just common sense, this is how majority of semi intelligent human population would think and act, thats a basic strategy for minimizing harm to ourselves - kill the most hostile/dangerous first, not to a score a pointless kill and get slaughtered for another 14 days non-stop.
"When the top priority guy is down, we might switch to less important target", exactly as it was in old AI.


Iain Cariaba wrote:
Seeing as how you were nice enough to bring a small, easy to kill ship, it makes total sense to try and eliminate you now, when we still have the manpower, than to keep shooting the other guy and hope we have the manpower to kill you after him.

yes, because it worked so great in the previous 545 Guristas Forlorn Hubs, we better get rid of any chance of help as top priority. I understand.

Iain Cariaba wrote:

The old AI behavior you're touting was utterly broken. When it was running, rats ignored absolutly everything except the first ship on grid.
The old AI might've been broken for PvE (not aggressing drones, not agressing anything but tank ship ever) but it behaved correctly in PvP situations when switching targets doesnt make any sense, unless new guy starts assisting the other.

1. Yes, you can fly missions for the pirates, and if you had, and actually had some standing with them, I could see them considering you an ally. Beyond that, you're just another target.
2. Where do I get how pirates think? Maybe this wonderful thing we call "history." You shoukd readmsome actual historymsome time, rather than fictional histories based in the future. Things make alot more sense that way.
3. So it makes sense to take you in the little ship out before you become the next person to slaughter them in 545 Forlorn Hubs.
4. Switching targets made enough sense for CCP to implement it. If you don't like it, don't hunt ratters.
Zan Shiro
Doomheim
#212 - 2015-06-28 22:54:33 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Iain Cariaba wrote:

So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. Roll No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.


not "throwing ewar around" but "throwing ewar on the guy who already slayed thousands of mine".

there are 2 guys

1) a known mass murder and enemy
2) a neutral dude who helps me killing that enemy

target priority should be obvious, the old AI behaved properly in pvp situations in this regard.



Except....it was used to kill spawns. Especially officer and faction spawns. Land on ratter, they had the aggro, you killed the officer spawn (still focused on ratter) and the ratter for the pvp fun and the pve payout.

Or are you and your other supporters of this going to tell us if you jumped a ratter, they have wiped out the officers BS escort, they have the lone officer close to hull....you would not finish it off? Billion isk loot drop is telling me this ain't happening.

If the old system left in play as is....this would have left this loophole wide open. Why CCP went the way they did and implemented sleeper ai aspect of kill em all and let God sort it out. It works. Site runners die in wh's every hour of every day. And the pvp'er(s) who killed them live to fly away after.


Aerasia
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#213 - 2015-06-28 23:44:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Aerasia
Mark Hadden wrote:
there are 2 guys

1) a known mass murder and enemy
2) a neutral dude who helps me killing that enemy

target priority should be obvious, the old AI behaved properly in pvp situations in this regard.
Mission Rats: the only entity in EVE following NBSI doctrine. Lol
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#214 - 2015-06-29 03:05:53 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
I want to remind you that you are trying to discuss f**ing with a virgin.

mike voidstar has no clue about nor has he ever been involved in any meaningful combat pvp, dont expect any level idea from him, all he knows is that you should bring a "proper ship for the job", mhkay? So the other duders in here with 3 kills in their lifetime on eve-kill are trolling you with their valuable opinion how pvp should work.



Well, at least you have more logic in that post. I suppose it was too much to ask you actually support your own opinions so it's easier to just attack mine.

You are incorrect that I know nothing of PvP. I don't like EVE's PvP. There is a difference. I also know game design, and a whole host of related subjects.

The problem is that you lack any basis for the change you want beyond your own selfish entitlement. There is absolutely no reason you should be able to kill whatever you want in a frigate, and having areas where frigates are not what you want to use is perfectly fine.
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#215 - 2015-06-29 08:05:00 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:
Petre en Thielles wrote:

wat?

Let's say I am the captain of an NPC rat fleet. Some evil guy from the Amarr empire shows up and starts decimating my fleet. Suddenly, a random frigate warps on grid and starts shooting. As the captain of a rat fleet, I need to defend my space. I need to destroy everyone not in my fleet who is on grid, so I shoot both people who are now on grid with me.

How is anything BUT that logical?


when a ship shows up, engaging my enemy who already slayed thousands of my men, the first thing I'd think to do would be eliminating that ship first. Makes totally sense. Brains, as suggested by the devblog, those rats dont seem to have yet.

So when a ship shows up, piloted by a guy 100% unknown to me, and suddenly starts throwing ewar around, I'm supposed to totally ignore him and hope I'm not his next target? Yeah, that makes sense. Roll No, I'm going to switch everything I've got to him and try to waste him before he can turn that ewar on me. That makes sense.


The enemy of my enemy is my friend is one of the oldest rules in human history.


Imagine your a criminal and some other criminal starts shooting you and kills your gang members, suddenly another criminal shows up and shoot the criminal you are fighting, any sort of logic would suggest that you dont kill that guy.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#216 - 2015-06-29 08:05:17 UTC
Iain Cariaba wrote:
1. Yes, you can fly missions for the pirates, and if you had, and actually had some standing with them, I could see them considering you an ally. Beyond that, you're just another target.

you can fly missions for them even with 0 standings (lvl1), not that important even, I merely wanted to show you how wrong your previous statement was.

Iain Cariaba wrote:

2. Where do I get how pirates think? Maybe this wonderful thing we call "history." You shoukd readmsome actual historymsome time, rather than fictional histories based in the future. Things make alot more sense that way.

they are humans, so you can imagine how humans think - I have no instance from our "history" come in mind, when humans behaved this stupid in a similar situation. Engaging 3rd party who is not showing any hostility (but even assistance) during a confrontation would very unlikely have a higher or same priority over someone who is mass murdering your nation. Ofc you can assume utter stupidity on their side but it would at least contradict game backstory (which shows that pirate nations can very well have relationships to outside of their realm deep into empire; no they arent stupid) and human basic instincts - enemy of my enemy is my friend is very basic thinking pattern.

Iain Cariaba wrote:

3. So it makes sense to take you in the little ship out before you become the next person to slaughter them in 545 Forlorn Hubs.

- you stated by yourself that the little ship is easy kill for them, so how would it become the next one to slaughter them?
- "could" is far from "is"

Iain Cariaba wrote:

4. Switching targets made enough sense for CCP to implement it.

their focus of AI change was pve

Iain Cariaba wrote:
If you don't like it, don't hunt ratters.

yes, I dont hunt ratters anymore (solo)
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#217 - 2015-06-29 08:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Zan Shiro wrote:

Except....it was used to kill spawns. Especially officer and faction spawns. Land on ratter, they had the aggro, you killed the officer spawn (still focused on ratter) and the ratter for the pvp fun and the pve payout.

yes, pve was broken, not saying otherwise, never did. As soon as you start engaging NPC or assist PvEer, you should become a valid target.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#218 - 2015-06-29 09:26:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Well, at least you have more logic in that post. I suppose it was too much to ask you actually support your own opinions so it's easier to just attack mine.

I have countered every single of your points in this thread, then you abandoned them one by one until you run out of them and started next full new circle of reiteration.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
You are incorrect that I know nothing of PvP. I don't like EVE's PvP. There is a difference. I also know game design, and a whole host of related subjects.

everyone who is involved in the slightest pew pew in this game, has (even if a short one) a killboard record. you have 0. You dont like it I see, its same kind of discourse like argueing about ship fits with EFT warriors who dont fly them.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

The problem is that you lack any basis for the change you want beyond your own selfish entitlement. There is absolutely no reason you should be able to kill whatever you want in a frigate


but this is not how this game works, you would know it if you did pvp - small ships killing bigger stuff (even solo) is a very common thing. You might not like it but its part of overall game balance.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
and having areas where frigates are not what you want to use is perfectly fine.

ofc you're saying that, you are pveer, you dont pvp, you would probably remove it from the game entirely if you only could since you dont like it, so you're happy when parts of it get screwed by strange game mechanics like in this instance, so you trying to defend it by all means, very obvious in here.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#219 - 2015-06-29 11:16:20 UTC
You countered nothing. You made statements that you assume are true, as if the mere utterance could change reality and make it so. You have no support for anything you say except that you want it.

I don't bother to log into killboards, and I don't die very often. It's impossible to prove a negative, except in proving a mutually exclusive positive. One thing does not mean the other in this case.

Small ships killing big ships is perfectly fine, even solo. What you don't get to have is selective help from the environment. The thing you are complaining about is wanting the rats to help you kill things. Rats are equally hostile to everyone, and you don't like that.

There is nothing wrong with environmental conditions that require specific ships, classes of ship, specialized equipment, etc... You don't get to fly in inherently dangerous and damaging space hunting people who have dealt with the danger without dealing with it yourself. That's not your enemy being protected by the environment, that's you failing to prepare. Choices and Consequences are at the very heart of EVE.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#220 - 2015-06-29 11:48:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You countered nothing. You made statements that you assume are true, as if the mere utterance could change reality and make it so. You have no support for anything you say except that you want it.

the myth about assets at risk, which your whole argument revolves around has been disqualified
here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5837738#post5837738
and here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5842356#post5842356
Both times you've chosen to abandon and leave it unanswered. moved to the next nonsense instead.
To show one of these...

furthermore, as I threw ratters safety (inverse of risk) argument back at you, suddenly risk (for ratters)
wasnt even an issue anymore, you apparently prefer double standards and one sided argumentation like that
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5846550#post5846550
(see your point 5)

Mike Voidstar wrote:

I don't bother to log into killboards, and I don't die very often. It's impossible to prove a negative, except in proving a mutually exclusive positive. One thing does not mean the other in this case.

not a big deal, just saying you have 0 combat record, because otherwise even worst noob shows up on killboards on some kills he ever whored on.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Small ships killing big ships is perfectly fine, even solo. What you don't get to have is selective help from the environment. The thing you are complaining about is wanting the rats to help you kill things. Rats are equally hostile to everyone, and you don't like that.

whatever your interpretation of my demand is - yes I want it to get changed again, for reasons I told on last 10 pages here.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
There is nothing wrong with environmental conditions that require specific ships, classes of ship, specialized equipment, etc... You don't get to fly in inherently dangerous and damaging space hunting people who have dealt with the danger without dealing with it yourself. That's not your enemy being protected by the environment, that's you failing to prepare. Choices and Consequences are at the very heart of EVE.

you repeat yourself again, has all been covered in detail.