These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#241 - 2015-06-30 08:38:37 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:

he's got himself locked into a "The NPC's should be my friends because I'm killing their target" mindset

and he refuses to accept that that mindset is
A: wrong
B: stupid
C: has no basis in fact


this mindset is not wrong or stupid and has a very good basis.



Just saying it does not make it so. It's like math class. Show how you got there.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#242 - 2015-06-30 09:09:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:

Just saying it does not make it so. It's like math class. Show how you got there.


1) already done
2) answering on same level as kitty.. no reasoning whatsoever..



3) go get some kills prior trying to contribute to pvp topics. bye
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#243 - 2015-06-30 10:39:33 UTC
Roll

Yes, because reason and logic clearly have no bearing in a discussion with you. If it's not someone agreeing that you should have all the candy then they must not know anything.

You have still yet to provide actual reason beyond wanting to be able to kill on the cheap for reverting this change.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#244 - 2015-06-30 10:54:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:

You have still yet to provide actual reason beyond wanting to be able to kill on the cheap for reverting this change.


you should share your knowledge about cheap kills with me, from your mission boat in high sec.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#245 - 2015-06-30 10:59:28 UTC
Stunning argument as always.

So that would be nothing to say about your own particular children's crusade? You would rather try and attack me directly than support any of the garbage you suggested? Fair enough. I suppose that is all you had in the first place.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#246 - 2015-06-30 11:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Stunning argument as always.

So that would be nothing to say about your own particular children's crusade? You would rather try and attack me directly than support any of the garbage you suggested? Fair enough. I suppose that is all you had in the first place.


how would you know anything substantial about the garbage I suggested? Has CCP recently added some new tutorial agents to Caldari Navy telling you about all of that?
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#247 - 2015-06-30 11:08:36 UTC
RollRollRollRollRollRollRollRoll
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#248 - 2015-06-30 13:47:36 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Yolo wrote:
the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority.


That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat.

It's a good point because CCP adjusted rat AI a while back to make them prefer targets of the right size. So if a frigate pilot jumps in on a battleship fighting off cruiser and frigate rats, that frigate pilot is likely to get jumped by the rats. You can alternatively use this to your advantage, to split up the incoming DPS.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#249 - 2015-06-30 13:54:39 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Yolo wrote:
the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority.


That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat.


That isn't always true. Dictors are easy to kill and a huge threat to ships with many times their firepower.

In a fight, my target priority is:

A - EWAR and tackle.
B - Reducing the incoming DPS enough to be able to safely tank it.

You can more radliy reduce incoming DPS by killing squishy targets first under the logic that a dead ship is no longer adding to the total DPS.

What it boils down to is that the rats are more properly mimicing actual player behavior, just not in your favor.
And you don't like it, which is fine. You're not required to like it. But no one has yet provided an actual reason why it shouldn't be that way.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#250 - 2015-06-30 13:55:57 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Yolo wrote:
the NPC's makes no difference between two POD pilots. You are equal threats, you are just easier to kill and hence a priority.


That sentence makes no sense in itself if you are easier to kill you are less of a threat.

It's a good point because CCP adjusted rat AI a while back to make them prefer targets of the right size. So if a frigate pilot jumps in on a battleship fighting off cruiser and frigate rats, that frigate pilot is likely to get jumped by the rats. You can alternatively use this to your advantage, to split up the incoming DPS.


That really only helps the ganker however. The way that works is that each class of ship prefers it's own size and larger. So Frigate rats prefer frigates and up, cruiser rats prefer cruisers and up, but will be reluctant to go back down to frigates, etc...

Their issue comes in two strengths. At a basic level they don't want to have to deal with rats *at all*. The more sensible want rats to be a bit more evenhanded concerning Ewar.

The rats preference for ewar is stronger than their desire to stay within class.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#251 - 2015-06-30 14:01:30 UTC
Elenahina wrote:

You can more radliy reduce incoming DPS by killing squishy targets first under the logic that a dead ship is no longer adding to the total DPS.

this would be valid if you would add DPS to rats, which you dont in given scenario.

Elenahina wrote:
What it boils down to is that the rats are more properly mimicing actual player behavior, just not in your favor.
And you don't like it, which is fine. You're not required to like it. But no one has yet provided an actual reason why it shouldn't be that way.

there were several reasons given in this thread
1) removed pvp content - solo ratter hunting basically dead due to post-Retribution NPC aggro AI
2) resulting more on safety for ratters was not needed, nor is it good for anything but ISK farmers
3) AI protecting the ratter and so spoiling player kills does not make sense
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#252 - 2015-06-30 16:26:30 UTC
You just keep hammering on those false assumptions.
1- ratters still hunted all the time, even by solo pilots. Content balanced and upgraded, not removed.
2- ratter professions not balanced by solo gankbears. argument has no basis in anything real.
3- AI treating all players the same. Don't do things to get agro and live longer.

Repeating the same baseless drivel does not add any more merit.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#253 - 2015-06-30 16:32:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
You just keep hammering on those false assumptions.
1- ratters still hunted all the time, even by solo pilots. Content balanced and upgraded, not removed.
2- ratter professions not balanced by solo gankbears. argument has no basis in anything real.
3- AI treating all players the same. Don't do things to get agro and live longer.

Repeating the same baseless drivel does not add any more merit.


reporting from motsu, or what?
What do you know about pew pew? Right, nothing. so keep your unqualified theory for yourself.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#254 - 2015-06-30 16:34:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Elenahina
Mark Hadden wrote:
Elenahina wrote:

You can more radliy reduce incoming DPS by killing squishy targets first under the logic that a dead ship is no longer adding to the total DPS.

this would be valid if you would add DPS to rats, which you dont in given scenario.


From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.

The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.

Mark Hadden wrote:

Elenahina wrote:
What it boils down to is that the rats are more properly mimicing actual player behavior, just not in your favor.
And you don't like it, which is fine. You're not required to like it. But no one has yet provided an actual reason why it shouldn't be that way.

there were several reasons given in this thread
1) removed pvp content - solo ratter hunting basically dead due to post-Retribution NPC aggro AI
2) resulting more on safety for ratters was not needed, nor is it good for anything but ISK farmers
3) AI protecting the ratter and so spoiling player kills does not make sense


1) No it didn't, it changed the way you have to go about it. Your failure to adapt to that change does not mean it was removed.
2) The ratters aren't any more safe than they were except in absolute terms because fewer people hunt them, because they refuse to adapt their hunting styles. YOU made them safer by deciding they were now too hard to kill anymore. The rats had very little to do with it.
3) The AI isn't "protecting the ratter". It's evaluating potential targets and removing the one that is highest on it's OSHIT-ometer first. Which is exactly what players do. When a third party jumps in on your fights, do you just leave them be and hope they won't start shooting you, or do you evaluate the situation and start shooting the larger threat? If you decide to shoot the third party, are you now somehow protecting your original target? The convulutions of logic necessary to come to that conclusion are simply baffling.

Ratters can be caught and killed at any number of places - inside an anomoly are only one them.

The real problem is that the so-called solo ratter hunter bascially wants to do no more than fill the role of heavy tackle for the rats. You lock them down, the rats apply the bulk of the DPS, you get a kill mail.

Well, the rats have decided they do not want your help, thank you very much, and would you please **** off somewhere else.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2015-06-30 17:27:58 UTC
Elenahina wrote:


From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.

The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.


So an idea occurred to me, as ideas often do.

What if rats did have blue lists?

What if, by having positive standings to a particular pirate faction (obviously it has to be one of the ones that offers missions), that group would be less likely to switch aggression to you - the higher your standing, the lower the chance. So now, you can specialize the hunting of ratters by running missions for that pirate faction, thereby improving your relations with the pirates and getting you more opportunities to kill the ratters preying on them, regardless of the region the ratter is in.

There are some pretty obvious gaps in the rough idea, but if there's interest I could flesh it out in a more robust manner and post it in F&I,

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#256 - 2015-06-30 18:38:19 UTC
Elenahina wrote:
Elenahina wrote:


From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.

The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.


So an idea occurred to me, as ideas often do.

What if rats did have blue lists?

What if, by having positive standings to a particular pirate faction (obviously it has to be one of the ones that offers missions), that group would be less likely to switch aggression to you - the higher your standing, the lower the chance. So now, you can specialize the hunting of ratters by running missions for that pirate faction, thereby improving your relations with the pirates and getting you more opportunities to kill the ratters preying on them, regardless of the region the ratter is in.

There are some pretty obvious gaps in the rough idea, but if there's interest I could flesh it out in a more robust manner and post it in F&I,


This was suggested and discarded because *effort*.

They aren't interested in PvE, just gankbearing ratters, in a specific way with no thought or adjustment to their tactics because they are super special snowflakes.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#257 - 2015-06-30 20:18:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:

This was suggested and discarded because *effort*.

They aren't interested in PvE, just gankbearing ratters, in a specific way with no thought or adjustment to their tactics because they are super special snowflakes.


are you afraid that CCP could actually read here and nerf your NPC bodyguards?
The rule is simple, dont undock your mission boat during wardec, thats it.

Elenahina wrote:

3) The AI isn't "protecting the ratter". It's evaluating potential targets and removing the one that is highest on it's OSHIT-ometer first.


yeah yeah, regardless how you put it, the result matters.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5844897#post5844897

a gun doesnt kill anyone, all it does is accelerating a piece of lead with high velocity in a certain direction.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#258 - 2015-06-30 21:22:24 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:

Elenahina wrote:

3) The AI isn't "protecting the ratter". It's evaluating potential targets and removing the one that is highest on it's OSHIT-ometer first.


yeah yeah, regardless how you put it, the result matters.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5844897#post5844897

a gun doesnt kill anyone, all it does is accelerating a piece of lead with high velocity in a certain direction.


And regardless of how you put it, you're assigning an intention to the NPCs that doesn't exist. They're no more protecting the ratter than you are protecting third parties you choose not to engage.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#259 - 2015-06-30 21:23:42 UTC
Mike Voidstar wrote:
Elenahina wrote:
Elenahina wrote:


From the rats point of view, you are a potential adversary. To put it in player speak, you're not blue to them, so you're an enemy. You have proven to be the larger threat by applying Ewar - the target of your Ewar is immaterial, just as it is in a player fight, since you could decide to change your target on a whim (intentions don't matter, only the results). You're also the potentially squishier target, bumping you up the remove (potential) DPS list.

The fact that you aren't shooting them doesn't matter. You COULD shoot them - as with PvP, a new entity on the grid must be evaluated in terms of a potential enemy, unless it has that little blue tick mark. Rats don't have blues (because **** blues), and they evaluate you as such.


So an idea occurred to me, as ideas often do.

What if rats did have blue lists?

What if, by having positive standings to a particular pirate faction (obviously it has to be one of the ones that offers missions), that group would be less likely to switch aggression to you - the higher your standing, the lower the chance. So now, you can specialize the hunting of ratters by running missions for that pirate faction, thereby improving your relations with the pirates and getting you more opportunities to kill the ratters preying on them, regardless of the region the ratter is in.

There are some pretty obvious gaps in the rough idea, but if there's interest I could flesh it out in a more robust manner and post it in F&I,


This was suggested and discarded because *effort*.

They aren't interested in PvE, just gankbearing ratters, in a specific way with no thought or adjustment to their tactics because they are super special snowflakes.


Adapt or die. I honestly give less than two ***** which they do. I was just trying to offer an alternative.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#260 - 2015-06-30 22:00:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Elenahina wrote:

And regardless of how you put it, you're assigning an intention to the NPCs that doesn't exist. They're no more protecting the ratter than you are protecting third parties you choose not to engage.


not assigning intention but resulting effect.
NPC AI is designed the way that it makes an impression of protecting the ratter. Eventually the AI even has the same effect of protecting the ratter. better this way? Whats the difference if its intention or not if final result is the same.
Do we actually know the intention the devs put into new AI? No, we dont - so we could basically judge by its behavior, right?