Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Thank you for this, In your own words you show us clearly just how little you understand the situation.

Rats hate everyone and everything.
Rats are not protecting the ratter, they are protecting their space and you are violating that space by being there.
Rats are not your friends, they are your enemy because you are in their space.
Rats do not care about who or what you are shooting, you are in their space and therefore must die.
Rat hate E-War even more than they hate anything and everything else in their space.

Ganking ratters / mission runners was unbalanced before and by continuing to argue that point you only illustrate yet again how little you understand the situation. Either that or you prove that you do not care about the environmental factors being balanced between you and your chosen target, you want ALL of the environmental factor to favor YOU.

I run missions and go out ratting a lot, the number of times that I get unwanted visitors taken as a percentage of the number of ratting session / mission I run has not changed over the years and there certainly has not been a noticeable change since CCP changed the rat aggro. What has changed is at what point in the mission / rat session they appear. In those dark times past they came in whenever they wanted, now the smart ones wait for you to clear out the majority of the rats before they warp in, or they are tanked for the pocket and do not care. The not so smart ones usually die to the rat aggro, normally as I warp out and it all shifts to those unwanted guests.

I will put this as simply as I can, hopefully using words small enough for you to understand.

1. CCP changed rat aggro for a very good reason, a reason that has more to do with the ratters than those trying to gank ratters.
2. CCP does NOT have a track record of undoing changes made.
3. Using above, figure your odds of this whine thread actually making a difference.
4. If you haven't adapted to the new aggro mechanics after (how many years/ has it been?), then you really shouldn't be hunting ratters.
5. Regardless of how you think you're coming across, this thread really is nothing more than whining that you can't get easy ratter ganks in an interceptor.

It contributes no less than your repeated finger pointing at others for using the same arguments over and over, all while doing the exact same thing yourself.

Stating something does not establish it as fact. You have a lot of self serving dreck up there, but few if any facts.

1. Changed balance, not skewed. Rest is false and unsubstantiated.
2. Unsubstantiated, and repeat of false half of one. The reiteration didn't make it any more true.
3. Unsubstantiated, and mostly pure opinion.
4 Proven false by posted kill mails.
5. Unrelated to topic. Ratter safety not an issue, ratter hunting is. Ratters still hunted, no problem detected.
6. Restate of parts of above false arguments. More iteration does not make it more true or less false.
7. False premise. Neither party protected, both aggressed based on actions.

The issue with your rant is you make a statement of opinion and insist it must be true. Any statement or point that seeks to discuss a point of view counter to your own is discarded as false- as if your opinion was undisputed fact. That's not how discussion works.

I can state that all frigates should be ground vehicles. Saying it does not make it true, and people pointing out that they fly and are treated as spaceships for a reason does not mean they are wrong. That is your argument in a nutshell. You claim rat aggro should only affect people who are not you, as if that was as obvious as a sunrise and indisputably true. Everyone else pointing out how silly that was and would be must be wrong by pure virtue of not agreeing. Every other argument you make hinges on that first statement being fact. Problem is you can't stand on a disputed opinion to build further arguments, you first have to actually establish as a fact that you should personally and uniquely of all people in space be immune to rat aggro.

There are conditions where I would agree with you. If you did have positive rat faction I think it should matter. It should be as difficult and time consuming to keep your factions balanced as it is for mission runners, but that effort should pay off.

But the simple statement that hunters should just be immune to environmental factors even when performing actions that are known to specially draw fire is laughable. You think they didn't do it intentionally? Why even include screams and disruptors in the factors that draw aggro? It's not like most of them try to flee, nor do most forms of ewar affect rats at all anyway. That feature was deliberate, and aimed at people abusing rat engagement rules.

See, that's what supporting statements not linked to your original statement of fact look like.

Statement: Rat Ewar aggro rules were deliberate and aimed at people abusing rat aggro mechanics.
support- rats unaffected by most ewar
support- impossible to gain advantage over rat swarm with ewar that does work
support- aggro rules concerning ewar make no sense if aimed at preventing trivializing rat content.
Conclusion: current mechanics working in a state of intended balance.
Opinion: that balance was aimed at those who were abusing the aggro mechanics.

You don't have any sort of logic chain based on objective and factual evidence. You have a premise considered false by most, and a lot of ever more ridiculous ranting based on the original premise being unquestionable.

I see you are going with the ever so informational and airtight argument of "nuh uh!" Again. Very Well reasoned, as always.


You say rat behavior is unbalanced. Clearly an opinion, one obviously not shared by the devs.

You give the killing of solo PvP as evidence. Refuted.

You put forth the opinion that PvE is too safe. This is really best answered with mind your own ship. It's not as if the ratter is having fun at your expense, nor really harming you in any but the most abstract sense at all. His gameplay is not your gameplay. It's also answered with its no safer than before the change, as evidenced by PvE ships exploding every day. The specifics of how they did have altered some, but they still die with enough effort.

You express desire to explode ratters with small cheap ships because bigger ones are too expensive to lose, and tankier ones make it too hard to catch them. This fails on both the level of just being cheap, and being bad.

You claim it's for the good of the game. Another unsubstantiated opinion, one that is easily challenged by an opposing viewpoint and by simple economic concepts.

All you have done for however many pages both now and when the changes were introduced is pitch a foot stomping temper tantrum devoid of all reason. No actual arguments of any substance, just pre-adolescent rage at life not being centered around what you want.

I am not defending the new AI, except in that PvE needs to be more entertaining overall.

I am refuting your posts. You are just wrong, on almost every level that it's possible to be wrong on.

No, you may not have the game mechanics twisted so that you have even more advantage. If you want PvP so bad, go do it and quit whining when you did to your own stupidity.

oh you are not?? Really, wtf.


you are not refuting anything, you abandon most of responses to your quotes in lack of no better argument.


but I can post here how I feel about game mechanics, thats what this forum is for. Why are you posting?






pvp is not centralized about pve, thats just a big part of it.


orbiting button is then still pve, with or without that obligatory rat :D

[qwerweruote=Caleb Seremshur]
slowly phase out traditional missions a few at a time and replace with mostly burner style missions.[/quote]
burner mission is still pve. I dont get your idea.

yaeh I'd love to see his pve losses too

I like to parallel pvp in EVE with the pvp in X-souls series. It's mostly non-consensual but there is a degree of balance in it. The compelling points would be a lot stronger offense than defense in all cases.

Obviously not.