'Attack of the AI' III

[Cmdr Andrew Johnson]

Ok, my views on 2.01.03 I'm enjoying life! Started in my trusty tradeConda and was holding my own but the repair bills are steep. Grabbed an A rated Vulture to see if it was me or the AI. Pleased to see it was me. Vulture in a high Res, stayed for the whole 2 hours of my session.
Last night sold both ships and brought a python, A rated it, took on some Deadly and Tycoon missions, I'm Dangerous btw. Ship held its own. Entered a high Res and survived with no damage.
Great fun.

 

[kofeyh]

15.31% have polled that it is too easy
45.25% have polled that it is just right
39.43% have polled that it is too hard

.... which tends to suggest that it is too hard as more voters polled that it is too hard than polled that it is too easy.

And at 45%, it was just right, with the highest vote count. We can play this game all day, but it is disingenuous to suggest that the results indicate the AI is too hard. It's a 60/40 split between easy, just right, and too hard. I'm going to ignore the far too easy as it's probably within a margin of error at such a low vote count.

If you then compare this to the prior vote, there is a marked difference in where the median is. So out of context we can invent all sorts of outcomes. But if you look at both the distribution, vote count and then compare this to the prior result; it's pretty evident that there has already been a swing as people a) get used to the new watermark and b) as the AI itself has been reduced in strength and numbers.

 

[Nicky the Hutt]

Some people stop playing the game because of the AI? I'm not sure how we're getting such a different experience, could it be the background simulation's doing?

If you're having such a hard time maybe you should try moving to the regions of Vodyanes, Nauani, Kacomm, Bok, Vernes. That's where I am and having a good time with mostly novice opponents. Both Fed and Empire in boom and expansion states, lots of missions, extraction, high security and low piracy.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But that still means that less than half of those who took time to do the poll think its too hard, whereas more than half think its either just right or too easy. Like I said, the poll is also almost certainly skewed by the fact that most of the people who voted in the last poll are probably just off enjoying the game.

Using the same aggregation method, 15% think it's too easy and 85% think it's just right or too hard....

While those who voted previously *could* be "just off enjoying the game", they could just as easily not be playing at all having lost interest in losing more than they are earning due to the New AI....

 

[Robert Maynard]

And at 45%, it was just right, with the highest vote count. We can play this game all day, but it is disingenuous to suggest that the results indicate the AI is too hard. It's a 60/40 split between too easy+easy, and too hard. I'm ignore the far too easy as it's probably within a margin of error.

It's a 60/40 split between "too easy + just right" vs "too hard".

It's a 15/85 split between "too easy" vs "just right + too hard".

 

[Mohenjo]

But that still means that less than half of those who took time to do the poll think its too hard, whereas more than half think its either just right or too easy. Like I said, the poll is also almost certainly skewed by the fact that most of the people who voted in the last poll are probably just off enjoying the game.

Or have quit it, as I have. I've seen post after post by people saying they're done playing the game until this is fixed. As someone said before me, the sands are running through their fingers.

 

[kofeyh]

It's a 60/40 split between "too easy + just right" vs "too hard".

It's a 15/85 split between "too easy" vs "just right + too hard".

One could be forgiven for thinking you just like to argue, and don't care if it's even on logical grounds.

Neither the vote percentage, or count, or distribution of votes supports the 15/85 split. "okay" and "not okay" cannot be linked, they are split over the median and are opposite values. "very okay" "okay" can be. Just as "too hard" and "way too hard" would be, for a sliding scale.

You are arguing illogical distributions to support a theorem. Sorry, I don't buy that for a second. Nice try.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Or have quit it, as I have. I've seen post after post by people saying they're done playing the game until this is fixed. As someone said before me, the sands are running through their fingers.

If the numbers were catastrophic, Frontier would be doing things differently. I'm going to go with it not being catastrophic. I've actually seen way more commanders since 2.1 dropped, than I did prior. Friends who stopped playing, are playing again. I'm not sure which way the "sands of time" are going, but it might be in a different direction to what you believe.

 

[Ziljan]

15.31% have polled that it is too easy
45.25% have polled that it is just right
39.43% have polled that it is too hard

.... which tends to suggest that it is too hard as more voters polled that it is too hard than polled that it is too easy.

It means that 60.56% of voters would think it was too easy if it was made any easier.


More importantly though, this poll only has about 25% of the total voters in the last poll. Which means only about 278 people bothered to vote "too hard" compared to the ~1000 in the last poll. This suggests that the issue of "difficulty" isn't nearly as pressing a concern to most people as it was before the 2.1.02 nerf. This thread also has 75% less posts than the 4000 post thread in the last poll. Which is further proof that the vast majority of people who voted in the prior poll are now too busy playing the game, and probably aren't even aware there is another poll...

More likely they are occupied trying to find Cracked Industrial Firmware.

 

[Robert Maynard]

One could be forgiven for thinking you just like to argue, and don't care if it's even on logical grounds.

Neither the vote percentage, or count, or distribution of votes supports the 15/85 split. "okay" and "not okay" cannot be linked. "very okay" "okay" can be. Just as "too hard" and "way too hard" would be. You are arguing illogical distributions to support a theorem. Sorry, I don't buy that for a second.

With a 5 choice subjective poll, how should - in your opinion - the results be assessed?

Then why conjoin results in your previous post when you mentioned a 60/40 split and on what grounds were particular results chosen to create it?

 

[Robert Maynard]

It means that 60.56% of voters would think it was too easy if it was made any easier.

By the same form of aggregation, 85% would think it was too hard if it was made any harder....

Whereas, only 15% have polled "too easy" and 39% have polled "too hard".

 

[Bomba Luigi]

I haven't even voted yet in the Poll! Anybody paying me something for a certain vote to support those funky numbergames?

 

[kofeyh]

With a 5 choice subjective poll, how should - in your opinion - the results be assessed?

I didn't create the poll. I hate polls. At 5 points; the middle option is the median. Which holds the highest vote count, with a count that trails at each extreme. On numbers alone; it's a roughly 60/40 split in the positive.

 

[Ziljan]

By the same form of aggregation, 85% would think it was too hard if it was made any harder....

Whereas, only 15% have polled "too easy" and 39% have polled "too hard".

I repeat: This thread is a simmering remnant of the original thread with ~2000 votes. So there is clearly a selection bias going on here with the remaining voters, and their diminishing set of likely voters is an indicator that a solution has already been reached. People who still care strongly at the extremes are the only ones voting. The vast majority would only complain if it was changed in either direction.

Ergo, to make the most people happy: leave it alone.

 

[kofeyh]

By the same form of aggregation, 85% would think it was too hard if it was made any harder....

Whereas, only 15% have polled "too easy" and 39% have polled "too hard".

You are ignoring the median again; which holds the highest vote number and percentage. Frankly? I'm going to stop debating because I sense you wish to argue the point, rather than see the results in context; based on the prior poll, there is a big swing, even with a lower vote count (which in of itself suggests the question is less relevant than it was). So, yeah, I think you are once again just arguing the point, for the sake of it.

Fly safe.

 

[myrr mac]

I repeat: This thread is a simmering remnant of the original thread with ~2000 votes. So there is clearly a selection bias going on here with the remaining voters, and their diminishing set of likely voters is an indicator that a solution has already been reached. People who still care strongly at the extremes are the only ones voting. The vast majority would only complain if it was changed in either direction.

Ergo, to make the most people happy: leave it alone.

its equally valid to claim the ones not here left in a huff and never came back. You have no reason to assume they are all off being satisfied customers. Surely you can see this, which begs the question; what exactly are you playing at here?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

AI is quite OK for me - the only thing that annoyed me is the fact they still gang up unconditionally in CZ. Just now it's REALLY deadly. I kissed my FSD and thrusters good-bye within a couple of seconds and then I tried to figure out how to escape. Amazingly, I got half through the reboot cycle but with the pack still shooting at me even all the HRP couldn't save me. Missiles can screw you up badly right now. And tunnel vision even more so.
I don't think CZ action is really viable for soloers anymore. I got a couple of good materials, though.

 

[Ziljan]

its equally valid to claim the ones not here left in a huff and never came back. You have no reason to assume they are all off being satisfied customers. Surely you can see this, which begs the question; what exactly are you playing at here?

Several of the ~100 people I play with initially thought it was too hard (about 40%), and since 2.1.02 are enjoying themselves immensely. We discussed it at length on Discord. Once Frontier issued the refund and nerfed the engineer weapons, there were extremely happy again. And now no one is talking about the AI anymore, but is instead talking about the changes to the BGS and where we can find engineering upgrades. Of the roughly 100 or so people that I play with on a regular basis, only 1 has been absent over the last week, and he has rl stuff going on, and plays other games competitively.

A few of us (myself included) were extremely upset by the 2.1.02 Nerf to NPC aggression and didn't play for a few days. But eventually came back to play the game "as is" and see if there was still fun to be had with the neutered AI. Not really, but we are dealing with it. Doing boring stuff like trading and running missions, and mostly trying to figure out where the challenging fights can be found with any regularity.

And btw. The people I play with aren't even combat oriented folks. They are mostly explorers and trader and miners.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I didn't create the poll. I hate polls. At 5 points; the middle option is the median. Which holds the highest vote count, with a count that trails at each extreme. On numbers alone; it's a roughly 60/40 split in the positive.

You still don't explain how you arrive at 60/40.

I repeat: This thread is a simmering remnant of the original thread with ~2000 votes. So there is clearly a selection bias going on here with the remaining voters, and their diminishing set of likely voters is an indicator that a solution has already been reached. People who still care strongly at the extremes are the only ones voting. The vast majority would only complain if it was changed in either direction.

Ergo, to make the most people happy: leave it alone.

Presumably, while not totally happy, players who were dissatisfied with the AI were still playing the game prior to the changes. With such a significant change to the AI there is a risk that some of the players who were playing the game before the change will find the AI too challenging now - and will either play differently to attempt to mitigate losses or just not play at all if they cannot do that.

Frontier have access to in-game analytics which show them how many players are playing the game day-to-day and should be able to spot trends (even taking into account the post release spike) in that regard. They can also pull out player earnings and player losses statistics - if players are losing, on average, more than they used to then that is also something for them to think about.

You are ignoring the median again; which holds the highest vote number and percentage. Frankly? I'm going to stop debating because I sense you wish to argue the point, rather than see the results in context; based on the prior poll, there is a big swing, even with a lower vote count (which in of itself suggests the question is less relevant than it was). So, yeah, I think you are once again just arguing the point, for the sake of it.

Fly safe.

Not ignoring the median no - simply recognising that it is not half way between "Far Too Easy" and "Far Too Hard". Looking at its tally in comparison to the votes on either side, yes. A result of 15/45/39 is not as compelling a case for the status quo as 5/90/5 would be.

 

[Ziljan]

... if players are losing, on average, more than they used to then that is also something for them to think about..

Indeed, but what does that have to do with the AI? Most of the people complaining in previous threads suggesting increasing income rates but urged Frontier to keep the current AI. The rest were asking Frontier to remove the overpowered engineer weapons, but keep the current AI.

Using the AI to fine tune the income rate is a HORRIBLE idea.

Bounties for high ranked NPCs may need to be increased (when there are no cops around to help!). But otherwise, I am not convinced that the income rates need to be changed I know people who lost expensive ships several times week (even in 2.0!!) and they are still netting several million per hour in 2.1.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, but what does that have to do with the AI? Most of the people complaining in previous threads suggesting increasing income rates but urged Frontier to keep the current AI. The rest were asking Frontier to remove the overpowered engineer weapons, but keep the current AI.

Using the AI to fine tune the income rate is a HORRIBLE idea.

It would allow them to determine how many players are only losing, for example - and "going backwards" in a game where credits are seen by some as a measure of progress is not fun.

I understand that there are those who still comment that they are unchallenged by the AI - just as there are those who comment that they are finding the new AI too hard. It's Frontier's job to attempt to satisfy as many of these players as possible.