|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 64 post(s) |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
10
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 23:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:]Not that we can test this while the server is down, but you could atleast test it before going off on another rant. You have no idea how it's going to work yet, so you can't say it will be a disaster. My ship progression was vexor, myrm, domi then rattler, so I'm hardly indifferent to the changes, but can atleast wait until it's tested.
To be fair, it's been tested, and most of the results I've read were less than desirable in the "more work" category. I don't think I've read a single report from a single drone user who didn't notice extra work, but with no extra return on that work-load.
And really that's pretty much been the answer everyone who's performed testing has came back with... to varying degrees.
The CCP Dev's answer was "Yup, more work, but you'll cope!" Others have found it not to be too bad, but definitely more micro-managey (that's not a word, right?) Personally my testing isn't finished, but I can't actually DO any new testing with the server down... So what do we discuss on a discussion forum when we can't really discuss testing? I'm fairly certain this patch won't destroy drone use or anything silly, and I'm fairly certain it won't touch AFK Domi missioning (without demolishing standard drone use).
As things currently stand, the last word I heard from the CCP Dev was that it'd be down until next weekend... so... not much testing apparently can be performed anytime soon?
CCP FoxFour wrote:Both of these groups will have to change and adapt to the new gameplay, but so long as they put a bit of effort into they can more than easily come up with a new plan that works just as well.
I guess the question remains... Why? You're adding complexity for no seemingly good reason and pretty much no stated pay-off for the players. And we get to cope. I'm not seeing the pro's here, really. Can you enlighten me what this lovely change of yours is going to do for us in the immediate future? Not the far-flung future when BS's and Faction BS's have been balanced in 2013 / 2014 or when we next see iteration on what's likely to be yet another dead and forgotten CCP project? |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
16
|
Posted - 2012.09.26 22:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Pak Narhoo wrote:Acac Sunflyier wrote:....and they don't move. So if you're 1km outside scoop range they'll die. Wrong, they do move, albeit very slowly, that means you A: only deploy them when your speed is 0 an B: you keep a constant eye on them, or a repper. Pretty sure they don't move, they don't even list a speed on their info. Overall though, I'd think sentries would be the easiest of the drones to use with the changes, as you're more likely to be near them to recall them.
They certainly do move, it's another one of those silly anti-AFK bot tactics. They just move very slowly, but yes, if you drop sentries off they'll move away from you (slowly). |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
17
|
Posted - 2012.09.28 22:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Is it looking like duality is going to be up for further testing this weekend?
It's something like 11pm in Iceland now... so I wouldn't count on it anytime this weekend. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
19
|
Posted - 2012.10.04 23:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:Singira wrote:If you were in fact in a PvP battle and someone warped in and started shooting at the same guy you were shooting at.. You would have to be fairly stupid to primary that guy over your original target. Allso considering the new target is "mega easy to kill" they should in fact not pose any significant threat.. Yes and no. If I'm engaged in combat with some dudes and a third party warps in and starts shooting those dudes, I have no assurance that the third party won't turn around and shoot me the red hot second that the field is clear, or won't start looting the wrecks before I can get there, or isn't providing a warpin/cyno for friends who will kill everyone indiscriminately, and so on and so forth. But I might be willing to run the risk of that if the dude is significantly helping me out and I'm losing, or if they have a history of helping me, as would be the case in the idea of gaining standings with a faction as you get on killmails of things shooting at them or what have you. Any decision-making based on anything other than faction standings would probably be tricky to implement, but it would be interesting and far more lifelike.
I can imagine the decision, and it should be fairly obvious to anyone.
Scout report "Hey boss, got a stealth bomber warping in."
FC "hmm, primary is at 65% and his tank is holding, that new SB can be insta-popped fairly fast and at least we can walk out of here with a kill mail to post. What's that SB doing?"
Fleet member "Hey boss? He's locked the primary, dropped a scram on him."
FC "wut?"
Fleet member 2 "Hey boss, the primary is at 50% now, what do we do?"
FC "Holy! Fire ze missiles at the primary, who cares what the Stealth bomber is doing, that BS has killed 25 of our friends and has about a billion more ISK in faction mods for a much shinier kill mail".
No? If your alliance FC's do something different, oh please... let us know! |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 22:26:00 -
[5] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote: Maybe I am seeing something that is not there. But I have experienced game changing patches in games many times before and it has never ended well. SOE developers insisted that the NGE patch was the right thing to do, yet it still resulted in near death of SWG which it never recovered from.
This won't be a NGE moment, but there will be a fair chunk of player's having just slightly less fun at PvE afterwards.
Apparently, that's the goal though. I guess like everything else, it'll be awesome after 18 months. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.18 22:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote: If the new AI makes it much harder to fly multi-boxed 3-5 fleets I will support this 100%
You're seriously exaggerating the amount of people that will ragequit over a harder AI. Like I said, it's already implemented in Incursions and the players obviously enjoy it. So saying copying it to missions will 'kill' EVE, makes you sound like Chicken Little.
Fairly certain the new AI has been proven to add zero difficulty to the Dual AFK Domi setup... Can't imagine how this change will impact multi-boxers without also impacting real live player's though.
And while comparing Incursion 'fun' to mission fun... are you also remembering to compare the profit? Or is that totally absent from your equation? |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 19:43:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:With drones, you accept that T2 ones cost half a mill a pop, but now you run the risk of them going pop. Increased risk of going them pop, and a higher chance of not getting back your investment (not to mention that non-drone ships may not have the luxury of being able to carry a second flight! - most of us posting here use drone boats with 3-6 flights, but there are ships with 125/125 or 50/50, these changes affect them just as bad, only differently). But any interface that would help to maintain drones in PvE, would make them harder to use in PvP, thus upsetting "balance", and that would be bad.
I expect non-drone boat drone user's will just have to accept the fact that their drones will be lost. If CCP implements the current "Sacrifice a single T1 light drone to buy drone safety for the rest of the mission" then all drone boats with more than 25m3 of drone room will start carrying that single T1 drone.
Rengerel en Distel wrote: You can't compare drones to ammo, they compare more to weapons. So it would be like if 7 frigates swarming around you suddenly all targeted your turret and destroyed it before you could do anything. Now you're down a gun, and the only thing you can do is go dock up and replace it, or take the dps hit for the remainder of the encounter. Some indication that a drone is being targeted doesn't upset any pve/pvp balance, as it's something that should have been included with drones on day 1. If they really do plan on a drone UI upgrade, it should simply come before this change goes live. If the AI change has to wait for the spring expansion, but it's really polished, I don't think anyone is going to mind.
I seriously doubt CCP will delay unleashing the AI on us for... well... much of anything. Conversely I expect in 18 months when tiericide finally hits BS's and faction BS's will all have more drone bay space than we'll know what to do with. Of course, again, it's the time between now and then that's likely to cause some pain. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 21:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Oh, and one last thing. There is no way I can dig up the posts, but I have seen one interview from one dev, and read the post of another dev, and they both HATE drones, and wished CCP had never introduced the weapon system. That may give you some indication of why this is happening.
CCP hates drones because of the massive lag they add to massive fleet fights.
Let's not confuse our contexts here. I'm fairly certain there's a fair amount of hatred towards the missions that are completed AFK via drones... but considering the massive amount of ISK injected via bots I'd think AFK drone boats would be pretty damn insignificant. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.21 23:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:Yes, a drone UI upgrade would be nice with the AI change.
The ability to add drones to the watch list. Ensures no real change for PvP (how many fleet engagements today DON'T use watch lists?) and it's enough of a hassle that non-drone boat pilot's CBA'ed to mess with it. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 11:24:00 -
[10] - Quote
Ran a handful of missions with a Rattlesnake.
The AI seems to vary between:
Disabled, but attempts to shoot sentry drones without dealing any actual damage. Which was humorous. Odd but humorous. Gone Berserk, Attack of the Drones, etc... I actually found this behavior more often than the "rats attack the drones, sac a Light T1, kill everything with drones".
Or in full effect vs. Light drones. Intercept The Saboteurs for instance has the potential to be horrible vs. a properly implemented AI. I just dropped some T1 light drones until one died, pulled the drones back in, and proceeded to clear the mission as on TQ with drones.
I suppose this change is sort of wonderful in that it does give player's choices. Do you deal with the drones attacking your drones, causing you to sacrifice a single T1 Light drone to appease the AI. Or just ignore the AI entirely and kill everything without drones.
I am curious, and was unable to test it, but will the AI shut down if a drone dies in the mission? IE - launch a flight of T1 drones, let one die. Pull it back in and have a SB land on grind and tackle the mission-goer. |
|
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
23
|
Posted - 2012.10.22 22:56:00 -
[11] - Quote
CCP FoxFour wrote:tiericide?
Ship balancing? |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
24
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 10:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Quote:Clearly, the AI is not ready for TQ.
in a test environment ! outrageous !
You're new to this game, right?
Lors Dornick wrote:I like the new AI, it invalidates a lot of old dogma and guides, and it requires you to think, so it's fun.
I found myself agreeing with elements of this statement... but not really sure I'd go so far as to equate it to fun. If the current version goes live (or if a modified version goes live without testing) we'll certainly have to re-write the book on running certain missions... but some missions will be a lot less fun without some tradeoffs (which we likely won't see). The frigate / elite frigate heavy missions won't be terribly enjoyable for drone user's, while not impacting the standard solo L4 mission runners... at all.
The new AI changes absolutely nothing for a solo player flying a drone-less HAM Tengu... while making life harder for drone-only users.
Personally I wasn't very impressed with what I found during testing. I found the rat AI to either be A) broken, or B) my drones getting blitzed by frigates until I sacrificed a single T1 drone to enable the broken AI mode... |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 22:43:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Vatek wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Realistically the scenario mentioned doesn't have the NPC's evaluating if 2 pilots within their area of aggression are allied or not, just the amount of threat generated. So what benefits the allied new pilot in a rifter that isn't generating enough damage to trigger a switch also helps the enemy SB pilot since he isn't shooting the rats In theory this is how it should work but based on Foxfour's earlier comments about solo ganking in a bomber "no longer being possible" and the devblog indicating that rats prefer to target ships closer to their own size, there is more to the switch trigger than just aggression. Indeed, but the comment presented about the Rifter flying with a Tengu seems aimed at that very scenario. The Rifter is a frig so the NPC frigs should prioritize killing it but threat level evaluation prevents that (or perhaps just reduces the likelihood?) and keeps them focused on the source of the DPS threatening them. If this general idea is implemented to some degree I can't see how they would fix one without fixing the other. To be more direct if threat generation is needed to get aggression then something that generates no threat gets no aggression be it friend or foe of the missioner/plexer/ratter/etc. The only question is how hard the NPC's will stick to that mechanic, but regardless PvP'ers will benefit more than PvE'ers since the latter will be trying to generate some threat to the NPC's while the former will be concentrating solely on the PvE'er and generating less, if not no threat to the NPC's.
I think you're forgetting the fact that the new AI hates / loathes / despises EWar. So once the PvP'er lights up the PvE'er with a Warp Scram / Web and starts shooting... he's going to top the hate list.
Regardless of how much damage the PvP'er deals to the Rats or the mission runner... he's still gaining mountains of hate from all the EWar he's doing. Unless you actually imagine the CCP Dev's are going to rewrite the AI code to help PvP'ers (a group they've already decided can just suck up the change). |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 22:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: I'm not forgetting that , but rather I'm (potentially erroneously) assuming the idea is for rats to evaluate threat to them specifically. So generating a threat to a non-NPC doesn't really get their attention. I could be completely wrong there though as I'm trying to read into the idea a bit since there are no real details.
Logi's 'healing' DPS boats gain threat vs. rats... so you're way off base if you imagine PvP'ers EWar'ing other boats wouldn't gain the same massive hate spikes.
Heck, it seems you can web your own drones and gain the threat (I haven't tested this personally BTW), so it definitely is not going to assist PvP'ers at all. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.23 22:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
Vatek wrote:Adigard wrote: Logi's 'healing' DPS boats gain threat vs. rats... so you're way off base if you imagine PvP'ers EWar'ing other boats wouldn't gain the same massive hate spikes.
Heck, it seems you can web your own drones and gain the threat (I haven't tested this personally BTW), so it definitely is not going to assist PvP'ers at all.
Threat generation should take into account what the target of the EWAR is. Other MMOs have managed to achieve this for over a decade now so I don't understand why the supposedly new and improved AI is so dumb that it cannot assign threat based on what the EWAR or assistance modules are actually targeted on.
I'd agree with you, but I didn't write the code... I just tested it. My findings pretty quickly showed the AI it was implemented on Duality is rather seriously broken, so I wouldn't expect much from this team.
In theory they've had weeks of testing and never noticed that their AI either didn't work half the time, or was easily turned off by sacrificing a single T1 drone.
Also, if they ignored EWar to non-NPC targets while paying attention to RR to non-NPC targets... well... they'd probably actually have to spend some overtime on the project. This one strikes me as being fairly half-assed.
The long and the short of it, in essence is, if you care enough about whatever you did before this change... you'll adapt and find a new way to do it. And if you don't, well, you'll probably just move on to another game elsewhere. Personally I'm just sick and tired of this doubling down on terrible decisions we see the CCP Dev's making. It's been going on since Incarna and the "No, no this change is awesome and you'd see it too if only you feeble little minds could understand what we're explaining to you". |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
27
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 00:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:At this rate of confusion and "what if's?" I foresee this whole change ending up in the trash can.
Well, that's one option we know they'll never take. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
29
|
Posted - 2012.10.24 11:16:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tried it. The impact was, if not zero, then still negligible. Said tackling frigates were killed using light drones, which were GÇö interestingly enough GÇö not even targeted, much less instapopped, when released. Maybe that was because the rats had something else much higher up on their aggro listGǪ
Read the thread much?
More than half the testing I did found that the rats would seemingly target my drones, but not deal any damage to them. The few frigate-heavy missions that DID target my drones were rather nasty though. Fortunately the AI is implemented in such a way that I simply need to sacrifice a single T1 light drone and the AI turns off for the rest of the mission.
That was an oddity, for sure.
Vatek wrote:Nevermind that it's a month away from release and from what limited testing has been done it's apparently barely functional.
And from looking at yesterday's Dev Blog from FoxFour it's fairly obvious he's working on other things now, and likely doesn't care much about this one anymore. Guess we'll see if they bring back Duality again or actually have the mass testing they cancelled.
Keko Khaan wrote:Maybe il just stop bothering with those rats and start buying PLEX
Fixed your post for what they're probably hoping will happen. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 11:19:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:For those that are responding to Tippia, don't. He / she is a known troll with zero credibility. No, I'm a person who gets called a troll when people who try to make opinion pass for fact gets those opinions shot down with actual facts. Now, I'm sorry that I've manage to run L4s with pretty much zero issue and without any impact on my completion times, since this fails to entertain your highsec persecution complex, but that's just how it is. The fact remains: the impact this change will have on L4s is negligible since it's so easy to keep aggro off your drones, much as expected. The only issue would be that whole GÇ£newbies tag along in bad shipsGÇ¥ business, but then, L4s are most commonly not run like that. Ad hominems and more paranoia will not change this fact.
You're one person who hasn't noticed that rats 'occasionally' destroy drones. There seem to be other people who have run tests that have found other things. Your findings suggest you didn't run enough missions. The vast majority of the missions I ran (probably not 60%, but seemingly more than 20%) seem broken where the rats do exactly that. They don't touch your drones regardless of how AFK you are.
It's the few outlier missions where the AI actually seems to be implemented where people are finding other things.
So rather than some shining beacon for the masses, I'd just say you didn't do your homework properly... and now you're just sperging about it since no one can do any testing.
Typhado3 wrote:And lastly future changes to AI. Seeing as your reaction to rather radically changing a core mechanic of a bunch of different player occupations despite heavy complaints about them is "adapt or die" it's pretty safe to say any changes to the AI mechanic in the future will be implemented entirely at your discretion. This could be good if it's say improvements to the system (it now agroes based on number of ew/rr modules) or slight tweeks towards the future goal (different sliders for different racial/security areas, minor slider adjustments). I would love to see general improvements towards a good balance. I spent 4.5 years studying AI and game design in uni so it's hard to explain how excited a true learning and adjusting AI would make me.
However constant maintenance/minor tweaks and balancing towards a well defined goal are not traits that ccp are known for.... Instead it seems to be your style to make large sweeping changes to a variety of areas with little investigation into the long term effects. There's also a long, long, long history of abandonment of game features for years at a time only to come back and make radical changes with an entirely different goal in mind than the previous work done. From this I see a lot less improving the system and a lot more f*cking with the sliders every time they feel AI/pve needs some love.
I don't mind AI that adapts towards a goal or upgrades to the system but if all that changes is every couple of months a dev comes along and f*cks with the sliders so they operate completely differently and we have to go back and relearn new tactics to work against them. Add to that training time to get the new ships/tools for the new strategies rewriting guides and more and more 1 off missions popping up where the AI just doesn't work seems like an absolute piece of ****. I'd like to think it goes for constant improvement but history is against us in this case.
Since FoxFour is already working on other things? I doubt there will be much iteration here. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
34
|
Posted - 2012.10.25 23:00:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Adigard wrote:You're one person who hasn't noticed that rats 'occasionally' destroy drones. No. I'm the person who have had no problems keeping my drones safe if and when they get attacked. To me, this has been an occasional occurrence because I have previous experience with Level-1 AI and know how to keep it properly annoyed. That is all: yes, they were attacked. Yes, they were also easy to save. Yes, ewar (and, by the sound of it, remote support) is a high priority for the rats. So no, it is not the dronepocalypse people are claiming it is.
You're specifically replying to my post, so I'm going to specifically reply to yours. I have never seen anyone refer to it as a 'dronepocalypse', but that's a fun sounding buzz-word to throw around.
IMO it will lead to the overall PvE experience being less enjoyable. Apparently CCP is working on my other concerns with unintended consequences, and so I'll refrain from complaining more on that topic until after we hear back from CCP FoxFour. That's not to say I think this change will make PvE more enjoyable, or that I'm looking forward to the added drain in PvE after this one's been deployed.
Tippia wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:You also tested pve content in a fit no one would normally use for pve. Incorrect. I tested PvE content in a fit that is often used for PvE, specifically AFK running with only drones.
/facepalm
So we know you totally ignored every post in this thread in order to go a'trolling right?
The CCP Dev's discovered and pretty much spelled out that the AFK Domi fit was actually buffed by this post. Way to totally waste your time on something worthless?
|
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.26 22:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Derath Ellecon wrote:I think the confusion may be that you have things backwards. Tippia very clearly stated in her first post (#216) that she flew a freshly trained Dominix. Dinsdale if I remember correctly did testing in an ishtar.
Indeed, Tippia apparently flew an AFK Domi into missions. |
|
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 01:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Perhaps you didn't read the devblog, but this is the first step into making the npc AI like pvp.
Ummm, I read the Dev Blog... did you? Did you happen to see what the second step way, or when it would occur? |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 02:50:00 -
[22] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Adigard wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Perhaps you didn't read the devblog, but this is the first step into making the npc AI like pvp.
Ummm, I read the Dev Blog... did you? Did you happen to see what the second step was, or when it would occur, or how soon we'd see it, or when we'd see the eventual NPC AI be more PvP like? Honestly just curious where you're drawing your insights from. I'm personally all for them holding off on these changes, although we know that won't happen... and I don't see a future with a true universal PvE and PvP fit in a MMO, certainly not in this one. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1947688#post1947688There were others, but some of the content was edited out. I was never trying to say that i agreed with the direction, or that i thought it was going to be a quick process. I'd guess it'd be years, because they'd have to rewrite every mission in the game, and they don't seem to have the staff or desire to do that.
Honestly I'm not so sure I'd take a short, off-the-cuff comment from a single Dev as gospel for the long term plans of a company with as many employees as CCP. Doubly so when it's not actually referenced in the Dev Blog you're trying to defend in your earlier post.
But who knows. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 20:52:00 -
[23] - Quote
Dregol wrote:Are you scaling back the difficulty of the Blood Raider high end complexes to compensate for the AI changes? These complexes are difficult to begin with (and most simply aren't worth doing I'm talking to you provincial HQ) with a dedicated brick tank. Changing targets means that it's going to be pretty nearly impossible to do these complexes. I get the point is to make shooting red crosses a little more difficult, but this is just stupid beyond reason.
The standard answer from CCP on this topic seems to be "If you want to do it, you'll find a way" although at least they disabled the AI on the Torp Tower for the 10/10's |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 21:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
Singira wrote: Remember that once the ratters ship dies, they will indeed turn on the frig/bomber as they should.. But prioritizing a target solely for the use of a certain type of hostile module on their current priority target defies logic..
This topic has been discussed before, and the general consensus is that real human pilots would kill the smaller target before their main target.
so... dunno... but that logic is not going to work very well here. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.27 22:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
Singira wrote:Adigard wrote:Singira wrote: Remember that once the ratters ship dies, they will indeed turn on the frig/bomber as they should.. But prioritizing a target solely for the use of a certain type of hostile module on their current priority target defies logic..
This topic has been discussed before, and the general consensus is that real human pilots would kill the smaller target before their main target. So, dunno... but I guess that logic does not work here. General consensus does not mean it is the right thing to do. And again, this is not real human pilots. Real human pilots would allso have the "supertanked battleship" warpscrambled so the bomber would not have to. Can we then conclude that all rats should warpscramble from now on? This would work fine too, as the bomber then no longer would have the need to use this module on the ratter.
All I can tell you is CCP's stance... "if you enjoy what you were doing, you will find a way to do it now"
IE - work harder now, because CCP doesn't seem to like that behavior. Current testing certainly proves that, if you warp in on a null bear running a mission all he has to do is wait until all the Frigates swap to your Stealth Bomber and you go pop pretty fast. CCP FoxFour had suggested up-shipping into something larger so at least you share aggro with the ratter in a ship with the same sig radius. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.28 12:45:00 -
[26] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote: Ok, joke aside, I'm rooting for one AI managing all this properly, without breaking anything.
I'm rooting for the faction police to become even more of a joke, because if you happen to miss warping off before they w.scram you, now you can just sac a flight of light drones and get away. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 11:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
elflorien wrote:are we allowed to fleet up and do the missions for the mass test? or do we have to do five missions each?
CCP will only give credit to whoever takes / completes the mission. So.. sorta! |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.29 22:45:00 -
[28] - Quote
Bernard 2007 wrote:Tried this and honestly the changes are crap. Drones are already the weakest weapon system and the only real advantage they had (in PVE) was that they served as an infiite source of ammo and that you could simply release say a flight of light drones and watch them quickly dispatch an entire room full of frigates.
If this patch goes live drones will need constant attention at all times, and EVE is simply not played like that. The only thing this patch will achieve is the death of drone ships and the prevalence of all ships that do not rely on them or have them. For instance I'm likely to field a field say a fleet full of Zealots rather then the current setup with a HAMgu + Gila + Cheetah maybe also swap from exploration to plain lvl 4 missions. I just have to say, I don't see anything good coming out of this situation. You don't really have to pay attention with any of the other weapon systems, why should drones be so damn different without actually having an edge of them in the first place?
I expect it's a round-about attempt (failed, mind) to nerf the Dual AFK Sentry Domi's that were grinding certain always re-spawning complex's that CCP fixed in a different way, and the dual frigate FW farming thing that CCP also fixed in a different way.
We certainly haven't seen any long-term plans using the new AI... I still expect drone boats to become less popular after Dec 4, and PvE to become less enjoyable after that date as well.
Still confused on the long-term payoff from all this... other than just another bullet point on a patch list.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:As for the sub drops, indeed they will lose tons. But given all the cross-over from Dust, it will be impossible to tell how many dropped to this disaster.
Always worth keeping in mind... CCP is ruining their own logged in numbers with Dust, so we'll never really know how the effects of this patch goes over with the players. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.10.31 11:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
LuckyQuarter wrote:I've read through all 21 pages of comments here, and I'm still unclear if it is a safe investment to upgrade from a myrm to rattlesnake for l4's in the near future. Sounds like I may need to hope CCP modifies the new AI....or just give up on the idea of a rattlesnake and become another lemming player using the ship of the month (mach).
If CCP leaves the current version of the AI intact (the one on Duality, because no one believes they'll go back to the TQ version of the AI) the rattler will be a fine ship. In roughly 60% of the missions you'll run you'll never notice a difference because the AI is just that poorly implemented.
In the remaining cases you'll launch your drones, and the rats will swap and you'll have to pull your drones in. Then you'll need to launch a flight of light T1 drones, wait for the rats to kill one, then pull them all back. Once that little maneuver has been completed you can use your standard T2 drones to clear the room.
If CCP further modifies the AI and inflicts it on the user-base without testing (there isn't *that* much time between now and then) then all bets are off because we won't know the new behavior. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.11.02 23:15:00 -
[30] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:I only wish more players actually logged onto duality to test. The majority of players on duality are going to get blindsided by this. A lot of mission runners are going to lose ships worth many billions of isk when this goes live. And telling them it was on duality for two months and they should have tested it will only infuriate them further. This A.I. change is going to create an outrage when it goes live. Yet CCP just refuses to see the negative side of this change.
I actually expect the CCP Dev's are hoping this happens... It'll probably fuel a few more 30 PLEX sales on release day as well.
CCP is becoming famous for doubling down on terrible (and not very terrible in some cases) changes... regardless of the outrage of the player-base. They still insist they understand this game better than the people who pay to play it. Who knows, they might be right. Certainly doesn't look that way from the outside, but who knows.
They certainly aren't reporting logged in numbers, or anything about the economy, or anything else these days... So draw your own conclusions. And the logged in numbers will be worthless once this patch goes live, because they'll be including the Dust Bunnies in those numbers. I expect the irony of that decision won't be lost on many people.
Rengerel en Distel wrote:The first testing period with the change really showed everyone what was to come. The 2nd one still had faulty code, and was using faulty code from the HUD changes, so was even worse than the first. Further testing won't do much until FoxFour adjusts the code however he's going to with regards to drone aggro. I'd personally still go with scrapping it until it can have more work and more testing done. Retribution 1.1 or 1.2 with 3 or 4 more months to tweak it wouldn't be a horrible outcome.
There's no way they'll scrap nor delay it. Those days are gone.
The first testing period lasted for all of a day or three... before being yanked for more "important" projects, IE - Dust.
The second testing period was nearly a month later, and lasted for a short period of time, but was essentially using the same code because there had been no major 'published' tweaks.
The third testing period lasted for longer... but likely still used the same code. Remember we've been discussing this thing since September. It's November now.....
Unfortunately we still don't know how the code changes will pan out. If CCP releases the current AI on TQ we'll quickly adapt, because the AI is an absolute joke in most cases, and there are very simplistic work-arounds for those edge cases where the AI actually functions as intended.
If FoxFour and co. have actually spent time working on the AI, instead of all the new projects they've been derailed to (IE - containers and something else) we should expect some nasty shocks on release day.
Ultimately I expect CCP has already forgotten about this change, and it's been dumped into the abandoned features dust-bin before it's even been released. |
|
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 11:24:00 -
[31] - Quote
Miss Silv wrote:I agree that it still puts a serious dent into missioning, but if their aim is to force missioning to be more interactive it's the difference between losing one or two drones every now and then to a web/volley, or to otherwise watch miniscule bars constantly and risk losing a full flight without any notice if distracted.
This could be, but even CCP has agreed that this change makes the totally AFK RR'ing sentry Domi a stronger option.
So... welp?
Way to punish casual drone users and casual PvE'ers while doing nothing to stop totally AFK drone users? |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.11.06 23:04:00 -
[32] - Quote
Meditril wrote:One thing I really don't understand: Why does everybody here seems to think that missions (especially lvl 4 and 5 ones) or other NPC spawns should be runable in full-AFK mode? The answers to this has been stated in these threads for months, but I'll spell it out for you again.
This change rewards the totally AFK sentry Domi fit. Those ships actually have an easier time than they did before. CCP Dev's proved this conclusively.
What was your point again?
Meditril wrote:CCP wants to make PVE content being more similar to PVP content. [citation needed]
A few CCP Dev's think this is a good notion, but does CCP as a whole want this? Certainly doesn't look like it.
Meditril wrote:This is a good idea and improved NPC-AI is a good first step. This Dev Blog is nearly three months old. That's nearly a quarter of a year. I don't actually remember the date of the last code fix, but it was months back when Fox Four disabled the AI on a few NPC's. So unless you think the second step being another :18 months+: off is a good follow-up... I think that's a fairly meaningless point. The Dev in charge of this Dev Blog has been pulled off this project and is working on two new things. Who exactly do you believe is going to do the magical PvP'ish code you're pining for?
Do I need to read your post beyond the third sentence? |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 00:43:00 -
[33] - Quote
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:As the last reply from FOXFOUR in this thread was 10 days ago, I am curious what the status is.
Has this been put on the back burner to be released in a follow up update once the balance is worked out?
Has it been removed from the que for now in favor of more popular additions?
Or is it considered a done deal and will go live dec 4th regardless of what impact it may or may not have?
From everything CCP has said, if you're not betting on the last answer, you're doing something wrong.
From everything said by the Dev's in this thread the current AI is working as intended and they have absolutely no reason not to deploy it. I'm sure they're ignoring this post because they're of the opinion that this is a closed project and everything is ready for deployment. I don't ever recall reading anything FoxFour said in these AI threads that suggested they were not 100% confident that this was totally ready to be deployed.
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Well on the latest iteration of Duality, NPCs in an anom refused to switch their targeting to my drones, even when the drones were the only thing doing damage.
Either the AI is broken (probable since belt rats aren't targeting players at all), it was changed to severely reduce drone aggro, or it was pulled entirely. It would be nice to know which.
Keep in mind... during the last few testing batches the rat AI would (roughly) target swap in 40% of the missions run. It's possible you simply didn't run enough missions to notice? I know the first four missions I ran on Duality I never had target swaps. There were missions that were run absolutely AFK without ever taking a bit of drone damage.
There was one mission where the rats were target swapping to my sentries (in a rattlesnake) but the sentries never took any damage.
I'd assume you're seeing the same things we all experienced unless you ran half a dozen+ missions.
|
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
35
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 23:56:00 -
[34] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: That being to make the AI more challenging, more intelligent, more dangerous to all concerned. Wow... you're bad at this sort of thing, right?
So the AI that's currently being deployed it so easily broken that, in order to disable it, you launch a single T1 drone... let the rats kill it, and then the AI turns off.
That's challenging and intelligent? You set the bar on intelligence a bit low there mate.
Or did you mean some fantasy future implementation down the road? That hasn't really even been hinted at? Even the changes that FoxFour mentioned in his more recent posts don't make the AI seem more intelligent nor dangerous. Turns out a solo Tengu pilot will never notice the difference. So it's not any of those things. Or did you just read the Dev Blog that those things were the expected result of this fix... and take off on a wild tangent from there?
Ranger 1 wrote: Going after mission runners will be too hard, actually having to be at the keyboard to use a drone boat in a mission is too hard. Did you know that FoxFour tested and posted that a totally AFK Sentry Domi actually has an easier time with this AI? So... guess not so much on that one? So this fix punishes casual drone user's, while apparently rewarding the hard-core AFK'ers.
Ranger 1 wrote:Frankly you people are beginning to make me sick. I don't know what makes you sick, but I'm pretty tired of ignorance.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Did you read anything CCP FoxFour said at all? If I understood correctly, they said that NPCs will not switch targets unless you start attacking them or assisting a player who is. They also said that they're going to dial back drone aggro more, and based on my latest testing on Buckingham drone aggro is fairly manageable as it is (Dominix with sentries and medium drones used for testing).
Having been one of the most outspoken opponents of this change I can say that it appears CCP is actually working seriously to address our concerns.
If you read everything said, did you hear a when? Other than "After Retribution"? Don't forget, this isn't exactly a priority for anyone. They're pushing the code regardless of the bugs, and I can't imagine CCP has pulled FoxFour off the new project he's working on.
So it's probably a fairly low priority issue for everyone at CCP. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 00:48:00 -
[35] - Quote
Singira wrote:Actually Foxfour said that "After Retribution" they will be making an AI that bases threat on damage done rather than signature radius.. It would just be very interesting to know how long "after Retribution" this is, because the current AI planned is going to be very bad for a lot of playstyles and not really solve any of the issues they set out to solve..
Since FoxFour has been working on numerous projects since deploying this change a few months (2 or 3?) ago... I'd say it's not any sort of priority for his manager's. It's possible the whole bloody mess could linger for another 18 months while we wait for the Dev's to get back to it.
That could be a good thing, or a bad thing, depending on just how broken the Rat AI is when it's deployed. If it's deployed in the 'sac a T1 light drone or pull your drones in after they pull aggro and the AI shuts off forever' we won't mind much at all. If it's deployed in the promised 'fix' mode where that 'feature' has been disabled it could be fairly ugly.
Singira wrote: To be honest I have no idea why they are insisting on deploying this instead of just waiting till they have something that works..
It makes a lovely bullet point? And they can point back to it and say "Look, we tweaked PvE!" |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 11:31:00 -
[36] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:In all honesty, I don't like that exploit..
Of course not... because... like any exploit it can be shut down at whim. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 16:38:00 -
[37] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote: If drones turn out completely unusable after new AI goes live and the exploits are patched up, we can maybe even look forward to drone system being overhauled. Which, let's face it, it needs badly.
Drone's, by and large, are not important enough for the general player... so I wouldn't expect such a change to occur in less than 18+ months. There are a few low-hanging fruit type fixes CCP can do first, and then all the other planned but delayed things. Regardless of how horrible these changes are for drone users I can't really see CCP pushing a total Drone revamp any faster.
Not arguing that the drone control AI is horrible and in desperate need of an overhaul, just saying I can't envision CCP going that route anytime soon. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 17:39:00 -
[38] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:This should increase drone usage even more.
Drones are a very sub-optimal weapons system for PvP. They're used extensively because it's 'free' damage, but you don't see many non-bonused PvP drone ships strapping on Drone Damage Amps IMO, they're really only used on drone-bonused PvE boats (Ishtar, the occasional Myrm, Domi, Rattler). You'd be a fool not to use drones in a PvP fight... but you're not going out of your way to make your drones stronger (except in the above cases, and likely not even then).
Jame Jarl Retief wrote: this could very well kill missioning as we know it. That is, after the flaw in the AI is fixed some time after Dec 4th. I've read reports of people losing their marauders because the drones got picked off almost immediately.
My opinion is it won't 'kill' missioning, but it will certainly make it less enjoyable. I'm less happy with all the unintended consequences.
However you look at it though, CCP is okay with the consequences. They've stated many times these changes will be deployed on Dec 4th, in their currently broken state, and they're perfectly fine deploying known broken code and fixing it 'later'. They haven't spent much time working on fixing it prior to Ret's deployment... because we've seen a raft of Dev Blogs from FoxFour (some were quite good, mind) but we've seen almost zero work on this one.
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:adds unnecessary work and hassle (case 2). In either case, the outcome for the player is a more negative experience compared to current TQ experience. In other words, it's a step back, not a step forward.
CCP would argue with you. This is the exact goal. It's more 'engaging'. Technically, it's exactly that. It's not exactly a welcome change, but it will make their boring / grindy missions a little more engaging. Engaging doesn't necessarily mean fun, btw.
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:After AI is changed, the missions themselves can (and should) be changed. Fits for PvE and PvP will come closer to together. All that jazz. But let's be realistic - CCPs speed at these things is glacial at best. So it'll be a slow and painful process, and slow and painful tents to lead to lost subs. So I really don't think this change will work out for the best. Unless, that is, drones are overhauled to function differently from the way they do now.
In a perfect world we'd see this AI change accompanied with a reduction in the overall numbers of rats in missions, and an increase in the bounty per ship in missions... but that's work. So it's not happening anytime soon. More likely we'll see rats orbiting at 80km that have to be scrammed else they'll warp off and the mission will be failed. :CCP:
Same with the Drone AI overhaul. It'll probably happen someday, but there are so many sucking chest wounds to this game that it's a very low priority. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.22 21:21:00 -
[39] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:So unfortunately, I don't think my views are off. I wish they were, but list of changes that have occurred in the game in the past 18 months, and the ones slated, indicate to me that the null sec zealot agenda is moving forward in high gear.
I'll assume your viewpoint is correct, because honestly it doesn't really impact me one way or another.
My sole response is "It'd be great if you're right... because it'd suggest CCP might have more people who actually gave more than a fetid dingo's kidney about the game in positions of power. " And that... regardless of whether they love or hate high-sec beats what we've had in the past. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.27 00:12:00 -
[40] - Quote
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:Had one thought about the whole AI and drones and fits thing.
The way I understand it, the goal for the new AI is to make PvE much more like PvP, and eliminate what is known as "PvE fits".
So... next time I find a gate camp with 40+ T1 frigates / cruisers and BS's I should expect to kill allllll those PvP type player's? Because, if not, your point is a little off.
Eve mission and plex PvE was designed from the ground up to be nothing like PvP. It's all well and good for one random CCP Dev to say he'd like to make them more similar, but since CCP hasn't done any work towards that goal, we can assume it's not a direction they're moving in.
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:...because PvE was exactly like PvP.
I've never played that F2P MMO game... but that's not Eve.
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:Well, if in a drone boat, you would STILL have two distinct fits: PvE and PvP.
Find us a viable and commonly used PvP Drone fit, and then get back to us, m'kay?
Morrigan LeSante wrote:And they laughed when I bought precision cruise missiles......who's laughing now bwahahahahahahahaha
Actually I expect the current Drone users will take CCP Fox Four's advice and just swap to the totally AFK Domi fit he tested, or swap to a boat that doesn't rely on Drone DPS. |
|
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
36
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 00:31:00 -
[41] - Quote
Morrigan LeSante wrote:Adigard wrote:Actually I expect the current Drone users will take CCP Fox Four's advice and just swap to the totally AFK Domi fit he tested, or swap to a boat that doesn't rely on Drone DPS. It's not the drone boats that I think are going to pop - its all the gun boats with frigs under their guns and nothing they can do about it (unless they read the test server feedback threads ) that are going to scream.
CCP is okay with this. I'm certain there are CCP Dev's who are looking forward to it, in fact. Whether it's a wise decision to annoy your customer base is up to interpretation though.
Jame Jarl Retief wrote:I just hope to fix this issue they don't backpaddle on the AI vs drones change, but rather go ahead and fix the antiquated drone mechanics and UI.
Hard to say, it certainly hasn't been listed anywhere on any future lists I've seen recently... so if they do it'll be at the cost of some future feature... I'd rather they just back-peddle honestly. Slapping together something fast because you've pissed off the user-base isn't going to give us a solid solution to the issue. It'll just give us something that was slapped together fast. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
36
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 03:18:00 -
[42] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:PvE as punishment is a horrendous mechanic. End of story. There is absolutely no reason it should be designed with the intention of being bad and especially not punitive. The excitement of PvP coming from loss doesn't require bad PvE to sting. Loss is loss regardless of how you recoup it.
Except loss isn't loss if it's not meaningful to recoup... no?
Eve being cold and harsh and all that jazz has bad and especially punitive punishments for losing. That's sort of the core principle. Otherwise you're just playing WoW, except in a submarine... in space. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
37
|
Posted - 2012.12.01 19:46:00 -
[43] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:You know, I went back, and was ready to throw some quotes around to show where the CCP comments came from..... and it was not you (it was Adigard)!! So you have my apologies on that one.
You two are on a wild tangent in regards to those quotes, and they roughly came from CCP Fox Four in this and the other AI change thread. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
37
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 04:13:00 -
[44] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:As I said, these are simply ideas. I do not claim to be a Dev, so the pros / cons, and viability are not always apparent. I agree with most of your post however.
Ultimately all the Drone AI 'fix' ideas / posts in the world won't really do much real good until CCP decides it's time to spend resources on it. And while a few dev's may agree that the Drone AI is terribad and in need of work... until they actually start working on the terribad AI, it won't really matter. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
37
|
Posted - 2012.12.02 13:09:00 -
[45] - Quote
Or just giving CCP too much credit? I'd assume whoever wrote the patch notes didn't know what they were talking about... it's the easiest assumption.
They've said they're deploying the code, broken, and that they're okay with not fixing things until sometime after it goes live. I can't imagine they'd recant that decision... The CCP Dev's are rather famous for doubling down on bad decisions.
Mund Richard wrote:WoW is mentioned a lot because... well, I think it's because EVE is SRS BSNS as opposed to WoW, which ain't
Probably because it's the most popular MMO out there, so as a comparison you'll reach the widest audience. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
38
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 00:01:00 -
[46] - Quote
Singira wrote:If the patchnotes are accurate it would be the best solution to the problem, that I can think of anyway..
Remind me... what was the problem again?
AFK player's make fairly horrible income / hour. You park an AFK Domi or Rattler inside a room, and come back half an hour later to find a cleared room and if the mission takes place in a single room, something akin to 5-8mil ISK. Last I checked you can make a TON more ISK at pretty much zero risk in high-sec mining.
Unless the problem is botting, in which case the new AI will do nothing to fix that... |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
38
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 02:34:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The issue was that people were doing this in places which continued to spawn NPC's. From the reports and related talk this could apparently be done for several hours potentially.
The full story... imo... means the particular Eve player deserves to win a medal for beating Eve Online in such an epic and unintended way. But, of course, CCP just slammed the ban hammer around and implemented some bizarre changes to combat it. It really was a grand story of Eve meta-gaming.
But the changes to render that particular exploit were put in place a while ago, and it's no longer possible to do... and certainly bannable. These particular changes would do nothing to combat that exploit. That exploit intended virtually all damage to be on the drones anyway, as rats were respawning and targeting drones anyway.
Oh well. I expect CCP did it because they did it. It's probably intended more to combat the FW 'button-orbiting' gimmicks, which have also been 'fixed' elsehwere. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
38
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 11:41:00 -
[48] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:(Well, I'd like it, IF the sites getting the new AI would be reworked to accomodate for it, or if my isk/hour would improve in another way and not decrease, or if it was new sites that get this AI, but no, CCP just rolls out an elephant in the porcelain store)
Agreed... I was rather ambivalent for the mission / plex / belt rat AI changes originally and more bitter about the unintended consequences.
Then I actually tested the code in a mission and realized certain missions would be a lot less fun (which is saying something for Eve's exciting and enjoyable... oh wait) PvE.
But now that the changes are live we'll probably get to sit in the peanut gallery as multi-billion ISK 'bear boats are lost to 7k ISK frigates in L5's, and lowsec 'bear hunters are nuked by the newly implemented CONCORD protection for PvE'ers. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.04 12:24:00 -
[49] - Quote
Bl1SkR1N wrote: I do not play this game for shooting some rats but for PVP, however, everybody needs to make some isk from time to time and when I'm doing this I am not looking for something fricking challenging from NPCs.It shouldn't be easy but not impossibrrruuu either.
CCP Is probably just looking to boost PLEX sales by nerfing the way everyone makes ISK. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 01:13:00 -
[50] - Quote
Aryth wrote:We would like to introduce you all to Tiberizzle. The spergiest of all spergs. Savor it.
It did make the thread vastly more interesting.
Also... 28 PLEX packages for sale for Retribution, so folks can easily replace all those pesky CCP caused losses. |
|
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
40
|
Posted - 2012.12.07 00:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
Daniel Plain wrote:i understand CCPs desire to work against afk missioning but having to watch your drones is an annoying and tedious ordeal, especially in combination with the stage aggro bug. now, eve is not exactly known for its user friendliness
It should be fairly obvious this AI change was never really about stopping AFK missioning. CCP Fox Four tested the AI himself a few months ago with a totally AFK domi, and actually found missions to be EASIER than on the live servers. So no, not so much... if this had been about stopping AFK missioning they had plenty of time to go back to the drawing board.
I expect this was about something different.
|
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
41
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 13:18:00 -
[52] - Quote
Turelus wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Just as a heads up guys you should be getting a post from one of us soon giving some details about what plans we have for the AI going forward. Sorry we have been so quiet, we have been trying to nail down a few things and figure out exactly what changes we want to make. Good to hear, I know a lot of people have been having a horrible time as they really enjoyed PVE in EVE. No need to make it easy, just not on extreme mode :)
CCP FoxFour's statements leading up to this going live were "If you enjoyed PvE before, you'll adapt", so I'd recommend getting busy on the adapting and worry less about what CCP is going to do. You found it fun before, you'll find it fun, in their opinion, regardless of how horrible it is. So get to on it.
If you're like a lot of Eve player's and you simply do PvE to fund other activities and you find it a rather boring grind to get at the more enjoyable things... then you've probably got a valid axe to grind. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
41
|
Posted - 2012.12.08 14:34:00 -
[53] - Quote
Mund Richard wrote:And experiment with new ships and fittings.
I expect my adaption will be simply to use CCP FoxFour's totally AFK Drone Sentry fit. And just go totally AFK. It's obviously not in my best interests to be at the keyboard in missions anymore, so might as well go the way the Dev's suggested. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
41
|
Posted - 2012.12.09 13:53:00 -
[54] - Quote
C0ATL wrote:Maybe CCP will listen... but most likely wont, so the only way I can affect them (even in a small way) is to stop paying for their product when they ruin it for me.
This is ultimately the correct answer. CCP FoxFour was aware of the incoming outcry against this change, and stated very readily that they (being CCP) were okay with it. His post basically saying if you enjoyed PvE you'd find a way to adapt was very telling.
Honestly a lot of us saw this coming, posted time after time the intended and unintended consequences, did testing across each wave of testing CCP made available, and kept pointing out that this change would negatively impact the quality of life of the standard (non-Tengu) missioner.
CCP deployed it anyway, because they're growing comfortable again with the 'double down even if it's stupid' button. Honestly missions are still do-able, but they're less fun.
I don't know... obviously we all have too much money and need to be punished or something. We've heard that as well, but pre-patch I never would have assumed the pilot of a passive tanked at the keyboard drone-using rattlesnake was 'winning Eve' in any of the standard ways and therefor needed nerfing. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
43
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 16:57:00 -
[55] - Quote
Junko Sideswipe wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Just as a heads up guys you should be getting a post from one of us soon giving some details about what plans we have for the AI going forward. Sorry we have been so quiet, we have been trying to nail down a few things and figure out exactly what changes we want to make. Any news yet? My alliance has almost completely given up on killing ratters without having to resort to awoxing gangs. We aren't recruiting new players because we have no activities for them to do on their own anymore, now that they can't go out and solo in destroyers or ninja salvage. We needlessly lose ships, loot, and kills because rats decide to neut, ecm, and primary tacklers. It's an absolute mess and a real downer for small alliances like ours that roam nullsec looking for targets.
I think CCP FoxFour's position previously was to dismiss your points as being invalid? Or something? Honestly I don't recall his exact post / want to dig back and find it. I recall him posting something about being able to land a frigate on a ratting carebear and living long enough to get DPS ships in... so you'd need to adapt. I think the ultimate solution was that you'd have to up-ship?
Also, FoxFour's gone for vacation, so don't hold your breath on a reply this year. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
43
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 02:31:00 -
[56] - Quote
Viribus wrote:Old players will almost always be able to adapt but this (unneeded and unwanted) change has basically destroyed two avenues of PVP and income for new players
Not sure what to tell you? The Dev response on that front has been somewhere between "adapt or quit, we don't care" and "If you really really enjoyed it before we nerfed it, you'll find a way to enjoy it now, even though we made it harder for no good reason".
Honestly I have a hard time envisioning CCP adapting their new spaghetti code placed hodge-podge on top of their ancient spaghetti code to fix this one. I doubt they even understand the new rat AI code, considering how ham-fisted it's been implemented (see the tests run on the new AI). Also, see Malcanis's Law. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
43
|
Posted - 2012.12.21 23:49:00 -
[57] - Quote
Sorry, but no.
CCP FoxFour likely isn't in any position to keep those promises. Putting aside the fact that he was involved in half a dozen different project since making that promise, he's not even on that team anymore. |
Adigard
RubberDuckies -Entropy-
57
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 00:08:00 -
[58] - Quote
jimbolina wrote:CCP FoxFour wrote:Junko Sideswipe wrote:Is FoxFour's team still even assigned to this? I see Fozzie posting in the sticky up top about reducing aggro to drones, but haven't heard a peep about player ship aggression. Team Five-0 is the team still assigned to this. After Retribution we made some changes to teams though for the new year and I am now on team True Grit working on the EVE - DUST link. Fozzie and Affinity are both now on Five-0 giving Five-0 four designers now. Let me see if i got this right. You came in, do some tests on us, players on TQ, saw your experiment went wrong, couldn't find solution, did't want to admit failure and you needed more time because this your 'feature' was in pre alpha faze and still is, and simple went to work on different stuff. Why for the love of god You don't want to be honest with us, we can understand, making stuff in EVE is not easy job, and admit yours errors. Why are you forcing your nonworking ideas on us
He was part of the team that broke Incarna, what would you expect? |
|
|
|