These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#261 - 2015-06-30 22:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: W0lf Crendraven
Elenahina 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.


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.


If you are takeing actual pvp as an example, i.e you were minding your own business in a bc and out of nowhere a bs comes to kill you, so you are fighting a enemy battleship in your own bc and you are losing slowly but surely, suddenly a bomber decloaks and you see the "x has pointed enemy bs" message and suddenly huge chunks of damage appear on the bs - what do you do? Do you switch to the bomber and nuke that or do you kill the bs?
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#262 - 2015-06-30 22:58:57 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
If you take actual pvp as an example, i.e you were minding your own business in a bc and out of nowhere a bs comes to kill you, so you are fighting a enemy battleship in your own bc and you are losing slowly but surely, suddenly a bomber decloaks and you see the "x has pointed enemy bs" message and suddenly huge chunks of damage appear on the bs - what do you do? Do you switch to the bomber and nuke that or do you kill the bs?


he'd nuke the bomber, because of ~unknown intentions~
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#263 - 2015-07-01 14:02:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
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.


why do you guys think that quoting status quo is helpful in any way? Yes, we know rats dont care if you dont shoot them, in current implementation - thats exactly the thing we want to get changed again. Rats spoiling player kills is an awful mechanic.
Ratters already have all advantages on their side, they dont need more.


Elenahina wrote:

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.

you cant blame people who they dont want to cross a certain line - its a game whose rules should be cathered for players, how they want to play the game or under which conditions.. - this argument is hilarious, "your fault CCP made it too hard for you, adapt or die, noob, trololol".
The only meaningful indication whether a mechanic is good or not is the acceptance on part of the player, nothing else.
Same situation as if CCP would cut mission rewards by 75% and people like you would come around the corner trolling players for not doing them anymore, you still could after all, at 25% reward... You get the idea hopefully.


Elenahina wrote:

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

yes and anomalies are the place where they spend 98% of their time, if not safed up in POS or docked, mkay?
Hunting in this place got severely nerfed presumably by bad thought out pve aggro mechanics.

Elenahina wrote:

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.

Yes, after all the time spent and hassle of getting around myriads of obstackles, pitfalls and traps of deep hostile space you shouldnt have to bother about NPC negating all of your massive effort getting to that point.

Elenahina wrote:

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

again, stating status quo doesnt help nor is needed for anyone, we all know how rats work nowadays,
thats exactly the questionable mechanic we want to get rid of.
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#264 - 2015-07-01 14:48:04 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
why do you guys think that quoting status quo is helpful in any way? Yes, we know rats dont care if you dont shoot them, in current implementation - thats exactly the thing we want to get changed again. Rats spoiling player kills is an awful mechanic.
Ratters already have all advantages on their side, they dont need more.
It's generally accepted on the forums that someone suggesting a change to the current rules provide sound reasoning and justification for that change.

Currently few people accept the tiny scraps of "reasoning" you have laid out for the change being proposed. Some of them are kind enough to engage with you and try to develop the idea by examining and coming up with potential compromises. So far you have not engaged in a positive manner with anyone who has attempted this with you---instead you whine, rant and gibber nonsense in a temper tantrum that no one agrees with your selfish demands for NPC support in gankbearing.


Mark Hadden wrote:
you cant blame people who they dont want to cross a certain line - its a game whose rules should be cathered for players, how they want to play the game or under which conditions.. - this argument is hilarious, "your fault CCP made it too hard for you, adapt or die, noob, trololol".
The only meaningful indication whether a mechanic is good or not is the acceptance on part of the player, nothing else.
Same situation as if CCP would cut mission rewards by 75% and people like you would come around the corner trolling players for not doing them anymore, you still could after all, at 25% reward... You get the idea hopefully.
By that standard you should have stopped arguing back around your second response on either of these threads. Clearly the players, except for you and Wolf, are ok with the mechanics as they stand. You have failed to gather the support of PvP and PvE pilots alike. Pretty much *everyone* except you two have rejected all of your arguments as the idiocy they are.


Mark Hadden wrote:
Yes, after all the time spent and hassle of getting around myriads of obstackles, pitfalls and traps of deep hostile space you shouldnt have to bother about NPC negating all of your massive effort getting to that point.
Couple of points here. First, nothing should make you immune to environmental conditions of the space you are flying in except for your fit. The playing field is level, not tilted in or out of your favor.

Second, lets not pretend it's that hard to travel around, and it's not like you are putting that much on the line anyway.

Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#265 - 2015-07-01 15:20:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
It's generally accepted on the forums that someone suggesting a change to the current rules provide sound reasoning and justification for that change.

Currently few people accept the tiny scraps of "reasoning" you have laid out for the change being proposed. Some of them are kind enough to engage with you and try to develop the idea by examining and coming up with potential compromises. So far you have not engaged in a positive manner with anyone who has attempted this with you---instead you whine, rant and gibber nonsense in a temper tantrum that no one agrees with your selfish demands for NPC support in gankbearing.

1) lot of reasoning was provided
2) nothing wrong with "gankbearing", it wasnt out of hand an pretty well balanced, otherwise people wouldnt've been farming billions of ISK in week, but how would you know about that, squatting in highsec mission hubs.


Mike Voidstar wrote:

By that standard you should have stopped arguing back around your second response on either of these threads. Clearly the players, except for you and Wolf, are ok with the mechanics as they stand. You have failed to gather the support of PvP and PvE pilots alike. Pretty much *everyone* except you two have rejected all of your arguments as the idiocy they are.

no, a lot of people are pissed, these thread pop up regularly on forums, its just not many people who bother taking part in discussions with people like you.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
Couple of points here. First, nothing should make you immune to environmental conditions of the space you are flying in except for your fit. The playing field is level, not tilted in or out of your favor.

I certainly would count magnetic/solar storms, asteroid belts, radiation or hazardous clouds to environmental conditions, but surely not parts of the game which imply and represent some form of (artificial) intelligence, so please get real and stop calling human beings (pirate nation) as environmental factor, this is an offense against humanity. Living species dont function that way like a water draining in the least way of resistance, electric current following strong laws of physics or a tropic storm blowing off everyone equally.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

Second, lets not pretend it's that hard to travel around, and it's not like you are putting that much on the line anyway.

yet again, its not hard from your mission agent to mission deadspace.
But moving in hostile territory, doing easily 40-50 jumps per evening on the hunt, avoiding 5 camps which sometimes even move with you forcing you to take breaks and catching prey is all but easy as you'd like to display, so better stop embarrasing yourself in this matter.
It is easy in empty 0.0, yes, but its not where you wanna hunt.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#266 - 2015-07-01 15:20:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Elenahina
Mark Hadden 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.


why do you guys think that quoting status quo is helpful in any way? Yes, we know rats dont care if you dont shoot them, in current implementation - thats exactly the thing we want to get changed again. Rats spoiling player kills is an awful mechanic.
Ratters already have all advantages on their side, they dont need more.



You do realize that all you've asked for is a return to the previous status quo before this one - when the hunters had all the advantages.

Right?

Mark Hadden wrote:

Elenahina wrote:

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.

Yes, after all the time spent and hassle of getting around myriads of obstackles, pitfalls and traps of deep hostile space you shouldnt have to bother about NPC negating all of your massive effort getting to that point.


Also, your sense of entitlement is showing. Nothing in Eve is guaranteed, no matter how much effort you put into it.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#267 - 2015-07-01 15:26:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Petre en Thielles
Mark Hadden wrote:

yet again, its not hard from your mission agent to mission deadspace.
But moving in hostile territory, doing easily 40-50 jumps per evening on the hunt, avoiding 5 camps which sometimes even move with you forcing you to take breaks and catching prey is all but easy as you'd like to display, so better stop embarrasing yourself in this matter.
It is easy in empty 0.0, yes, but its not where you wanna hunt.


Step 1: scan down a few wormholes

Step 2: scan down their exits

Step 3: bookmark everything

Step 4: take two jumps to hostile null


Seriously, if you're taking 50 jumps to get to hostile space, you are doing something wrong.

Don't you have someone scanning/BMing WHs in your pocket daily already, just for safety?
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2015-07-01 15:26:59 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
If you take actual pvp as an example, i.e you were minding your own business in a bc and out of nowhere a bs comes to kill you, so you are fighting a enemy battleship in your own bc and you are losing slowly but surely, suddenly a bomber decloaks and you see the "x has pointed enemy bs" message and suddenly huge chunks of damage appear on the bs - what do you do? Do you switch to the bomber and nuke that or do you kill the bs?


he'd nuke the bomber, because of ~unknown intentions~


Please don't presume to know how I would respond in a given situation. It's insulting, and it makes you look like an arrogant *******.

As to the question, the answer would depend largely on how the BS reacts - I would evaluate the tactical situation, and make a decision based on the new information, rather than blindly continuing to plink away at the target I currently have locked.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#269 - 2015-07-01 15:34:50 UTC
Elenahina wrote:

You do realize that all you've asked for is a return to the previous status quo before this one - when the hunters had all the advantages.

Right?


what? You dont even get this easy thing right.
Its not returning to anything, its about stating obvious, stating status quo being useless.
You dont need to say how rats behave now, we all know it, you also dont need to say that space is cold or water is wet, we all know that without your help.
Better waste your words on something that remotely looks like argument.

Petre en Thielles wrote:
stuff


not going argue much with a forum alt. Post with your main, even Mike had balls to reveal us the fact that he has almost no business with pvp.
40-50 jumps on the hunt, regardless how you got there is real (assumed you survive that long at all).
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#270 - 2015-07-01 15:35:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Petre en Thielles
Mark Hadden wrote:

he'd nuke the bomber, because of ~unknown intentions~


If I had a chance to quickly pop a frigate and get another kill before switching back to my first target, why the hell wouldn't I?

Do you not like more kills on your KB? Why do you think the NPCs would think differently?

Mark Hadden wrote:

not going argue much with a forum alt. Post with your main, even Mike had balls to reveal us the fact that he has almost no business with pvp.
40-50 jumps on the hunt, regardless how you got there is real (assumed you survive that long at all).



Something something I can't address the point.

And no, I don't give free intel about my multiple characters. talking about 'having balls'. Since when is EVE an honorable game?

Either address what I *actually* said, or don't bother responding, mmkay?
Petre en Thielles
Doomheim
#271 - 2015-07-01 15:37:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Petre en Thielles
duplicate post
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#272 - 2015-07-01 15:44:22 UTC
Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please?
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#273 - 2015-07-01 15:45:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please?

yes its still about rat aggro rules. Not very hard to miss, is it?
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#274 - 2015-07-01 16:04:19 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please?

yes its still about rag aggro rules. Not very hard to miss, is it?



So my take on it. They are all from pirate factions. (follow me here) That makes them pirates. I think the deep down core of being a pirate is "pirates gonna do what a pirates gonna do".

If I were an npc pirate getting my poop pushed in by some pve bear and you showed up in a garmur, then hells yeah I'd swap over and take you down before I lose out to some bear. Think of my npc pirate kb. That only makes super obvious sense.

The underlying argument of "I'm helping the pirate, so he shouldn't attack me" makes me laugh. Are you really playing the 'How dare a pirate act in an illogical way?" card. The whole premise of this thread is totally borked.

Let's boil it down to the real issue. You're just all pantybunched because you've chosen to rip around in a risk averse kiting piece of garbage. Said garbage can't even hang w/ belt rats and now you panties are all twisted. The game doesn't have an issue - you're just mad you don't have a kitey risk averse I win button.

I'll be honest.... your risk averse garmur tears are truely tastey. An npc belt rat exposing your inability to play eve is also delicious. Your "To the forums lads - let's hide out bads" is devine. I totally get where you're coming from and what you are trying to do. Please... keep crying.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#275 - 2015-07-01 16:07:51 UTC
Mark Hadden wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Is this still about how unfair it is for rats to agress who ever they please?

yes its still about rat aggro rules. Not very hard to miss, is it?



I just thought a bit more about this. So.... folks are demanding that the npc PIRATES should totally FOLLOW RULES? The same folks go on to further demand the the RULE FOLLOWING PIRATES are following bad rules and the rules should be changed??


This is like the silliest thread ever.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#276 - 2015-07-01 16:10:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
the issue is way deeper than just the garmur in belt scenario from original post (not even mine).
But nice that you at least bothered to read the first post of this threadnought.


Serendipity Lost wrote:

I just thought a bit more about this. So.... folks are demanding that the npc PIRATES should totally FOLLOW RULES? The same folks go on to further demand the the RULE FOLLOWING PIRATES are following bad rules and the rules should be changed??


This is like the silliest thread ever.



people (include me) mainly care about gameplay implications, not some ****** lore behind it (even if it should make sense) which is secondary.
But yes, you're basically right. We want to get mechanics changed because we think they are broken.

What silly is it's people who think that using forum on purpose is somehow silly - but its just me, I might be wrong.
If you post a petition (alrady did twice) you'll be sent over here with a request for a thread.

You might not realize it but you are acting exactly the same like the opposite party, trying to justify your vision of NPC AI with no further reasoning... "BUT, GUISEE LOL, LISTEN TO ME - ITS PIRATES, PI-RA-TE-S!!! GOT IT? THEY BLAZE YA BUTT THATS ALL RIGHT CUS PIRATES, MHKAY?".
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
#277 - 2015-07-01 16:28:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Voidstar
I like how you switch to lore for " it makes no sense pirates won't help me", and then claim you are all about gameplay when it's pointed out you are wrong on the lore.

People, most certainly not you, do care about gameplay implications. The AI should not be so easily manipulated for or against anyone without some substancial effort involved.

You have failed to effort, you failed to risk, and now you fail to get rewarded. Rather than correct your choices you want the game altered so you don't have to. That's rarely received well on the forums, usually by guys just like you.

At least with PvE pilots you might have had a chance if your lore reasoning had been functional, or if you were willing to effort up some standings and face consequences from standings having meaning.

As it is, you are pretty much the crazy guy preaching on the street corner about doom.
Mark Hadden
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#278 - 2015-07-01 17:08:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mark Hadden
Mike Voidstar wrote:
I like how you switch to lore for " it makes no sense pirates won't help me", and then claim you are all about gameplay when it's pointed out you are wrong on the lore.

yes, I do say the current mechanics are ******** from lore perspective, they dont respect one of the basic human rules "enemy of my enemy is my friend", even worse they even quasi protect their slayer.

Mike Voidstar wrote:
People, most certainly not you, do care about gameplay implications. The AI should not be so easily manipulated for or against anyone without some substancial effort involved.

In the first line, AI shouldnt spoil player kills.
In the second line, it shouldnt make carebearing even safer than it ever was, stacked upon bunch of all other advantages a carebear already had.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

You have failed to effort, you failed to risk, and now you fail to get rewarded. Rather than correct your choices you want the game altered so you don't have to. That's rarely received well on the forums, usually by guys just like you.

you still failed to understand that you basically cant contribute anything to this discussion, as a pure mission runner high sec squatter.

Mike Voidstar wrote:

At least with PvE pilots you might have had a chance if your lore reasoning had been functional, or if you were willing to effort up some standings and face consequences from standings having meaning.

As it is, you are pretty much the crazy guy preaching on the street corner about doom.

go back to motsu, Mr. 0 kills in 6 years. I still cant understand how you still havent run ashamed from a topic you obviously have neither clue nor the slightest business with. If I interfere in a discussion, I usually make sure to have a minimum amount of knowledge and experience in said subject - read: I've done it a couple of times at least, you on the contrary are making assumptions about cheap kills, gankbears and what not without having a slightest clue about the whole story!!

You lost 1 (one) ratting / salvaging / pve (I cant even tell) failfit myrmydon in 0.0 back in 2009, still butthurt so much?

This is the right forum for you: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=248
W0lf Crendraven
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#279 - 2015-07-01 17:54:28 UTC
Petre en Thielles wrote:
Mark Hadden wrote:

he'd nuke the bomber, because of ~unknown intentions~


If I had a chance to quickly pop a frigate and get another kill before switching back to my first target, why the hell wouldn't I?

Do you not like more kills on your KB? Why do you think the NPCs would think differently?

[


Because you are dying to that 1 target, togetther you have a chance. And sorry but that answer alone disqualifies you in my mind from beeing taken seriously in any pvp related topic.
Zimmer Jones
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2015-07-01 17:59:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Zimmer Jones
NPC focusing on main aggressor gets my support in High and Nullsec, lowsec should be as dangerous as possible to everyone.

Just to quibble, the proper quote for eve, the more realistic one at least is "the enemy of my enemy is my enemies enemy"

Were I an NPC, I'd shoot the thing that has been and is shooting at me, that 3rd party might not agress ME if i don't agress it. Less ships shooting at me=better chance of survival+better chance of killing the first target.

Even if the 3rd party agresses me, I wouldn't switch targets until it is shown the 3rd party hits harder and has a weaker tank.

Supported, excepting Lowsec, where NPC's options/actions should be a bit more random.

[note: my killboard is crap, this is a logi character. I'm pretty good at running away, cause I'm an untrusting pessimistic bastard, and I expect other to be as well, NPC's included]

ed* the maxim quoted was from this page, which is a decent list, if padded out a little:

http://schlockmercenary.wikia.com/wiki/The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries

Use the force without consent and the court wont acquit you even if you are a card carryin', robe wearin' Jedi.