Agreed, but it is harder to make the PCs behave realistically than the NPCs
Poll about NPC rights
- Thread starter Han_Zen
- Start date
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I actually totally disagree.
imo it should be the goal to make the npcs act as realistically as possible (within the confines of the game rules). A lot of human players however do nothing of the sort.
I would not want npcs to go "full Leroy" on me just because a few players do.
equally i would not want npcs in a FGS with a full on meta ship which cant even hyperspace killing noobs in sidewinders and exploiting loopholes in game mechanics just because players do it
I expect npcs to be BETTER than many players at filling the roles they are meant to play.
(point in question, the multiplayer cops and robbers game BF hardline.......
I actually totally disagree.
imo it should be the goal to make the npcs act as realistically as possible (within the confines of the game rules). A lot of human players however do nothing of the sort.
I would not want npcs to go "full Leroy" on me just because a few players do.
equally i would not want npcs in a FGS with a full on meta ship which cant even hyperspace killing noobs in sidewinders and exploiting loopholes in game mechanics just because players do it
I expect npcs to be BETTER than many players at filling the roles they are meant to play.
(point in question, the multiplayer cops and robbers game BF hardline.......
I think there is more work to be done to close all the loopholes for players, than for the NPCs.
You can always tell the difference between someone who has designed a game, and someone who *wants* to design a game.
Ask yourself this OP: "Would it be fun?".
It's all well and good making the system more "fair" and "realistic", but you are missing out on the not insignificant fact that people play games to do what they can't in real life. Even in "hardcore" simulations like Elite, most players are fulfilling a power fantasy when they play the game.
Having NPCs on an equal footing with the player will grow old extremely fast. In fact, the 2.1 changes basically proved this.
So no, giving NPCs a more equal footing with players would not be a good idea. It would be just about the worst idea FD could implement.
Ask yourself this OP: "Would it be fun?".
It's all well and good making the system more "fair" and "realistic", but you are missing out on the not insignificant fact that people play games to do what they can't in real life. Even in "hardcore" simulations like Elite, most players are fulfilling a power fantasy when they play the game.
Having NPCs on an equal footing with the player will grow old extremely fast. In fact, the 2.1 changes basically proved this.
So no, giving NPCs a more equal footing with players would not be a good idea. It would be just about the worst idea FD could implement.
Last edited:
good point, however i think there is a happy medium to be found.... its not (imo) a very good power fantasy if i cant convince myself i have been in a battle sometimes..
Truth is, i DO have some hairy scraps in the current build of the game. but again it is only because i implement certain rules when it comes to my ship building. The question is, is it good multiplayer game design to make it the players job to deliberately gimp their build to make the game a challenge?
i saw a PvP video of a corvette going head to toe with the new chieftain. The amount of punishment both ships were able to take was monstrous. i think it would have took an npc half an hr to destroy either one of those player builds...... and i know my ship would have been smoked in under a minute.
The 2.1 changes were bugs. The NPCs cheated. That's not fun.
You have to turn it around and ask yourself: Did you have fun, when you played in the realm of the NPCs? When you first started out and didn't have access to expensive ships, fancy modules and engineering. I bet you did.
I would not want to buff NPCs to PvP minimax levels. I would do the complete opposite.
I would first start of with a long beta where all defensive modules(except shield generator and armor), premium ammo and weapons specials were removed. This should be used to balance all ships to fit their role. All adjustments should be done on the base values.
When the base balance is right. They could reintroduce defensive internal modules in military slots only. Allow SBs that gave a flat boost(no percentage) with appropriate power consumption.
Engineering should be applied to NPCs, according to their role rank and the power of their faction.
Combat oriented missions and gameplay should shift focus from quantity to quality where bounty and difficulty scale exponentially, like our ship prices.
I guess I just preferere the survival fantasy over the power fantasy.
You need to ask how NPCs will be matched to players. You don't really want superpimpships going against unengineered ships.
The random bulletsponges that spawned with 2.1 is enough of a disincentive to play already.
The random bulletsponges that spawned with 2.1 is enough of a disincentive to play already.
WHOPEEE Whoop Whop...
How do I vote ? (I miss this)
How do I vote ? (I miss this)
Tough marmary glands for them, its been over two years since horizons was released, and ostensibly it is now finished, and we are into the beyond season which horizons customers are getting for free Even assuming they bought the game at full price and not in one of the sales, they've had upto 24months of play out of it, its about time they put their hand in their pocket and bought the latest installments of the game.
See, I'm pretty sure you can't hide from engineers in solo. Just because you're alone in the universe doesn't stop ships from becoming equipped.
More to the point......if I'm playing the NON-engineers version on the launcher, (and I have, just to see) then only MY ship is unengineered. I can destroy and pick up parts, scan anomalous shield readings, etc.......ALL IN NON-ENGINEER VERSION OF THE GAME. Whaaaa?
Edited to add:
See, I did that. And I don't want to participate in engineers, because I only got Horizons for planetary landings. I VOLUNTARILY play the non-horizons game on the launcher and STILL have to face engineered ships. This is wrong. and needs addressing. I don't WANT to grind engineers, and if I'm playing that non-version where I simply cannot make planetary landings or see and engineer...then why should I have to face NPC ships that can? (For the record, solo only player)
Last edited:
For me what is frustrating and an ordeal is turkey shoot of elite NPC's.
Fighting an Elite NPC should be a tall order for most pilots. Not butcher 10 of them in a row losing one shield ring.
I would say : if you meet an elite NPC you should be affraid unless a combat expert.
I think high rank NPC's should be engineered like players are, period. T
ilt the distribution so that they are mostly found in anarchies, Hazres and high intensity CZ
so that players have a choice and know before hand what they might get into.
The witcher 3 is open world with ennemies massively more powerfull than you. Yet it is fine because :$
1) You can always flee
2) It gives you something to strive for.
I find it funny like at the same time some people insist that the players are not special, not the hero and not the center of the universe
and yet at the same time insist that they must be massively more powerfull than any NPC. Makes zero sense in term of consistency.
Either we're super heroes and we PWD NPC's like no tomorow, or we're not. And an Elite engineered pirate lord with escort is a very very
scary thing for a player in a vulture, even for a good pilot.
The big issue is non-Hz players : what do we do ?
IMO => give planetary landing to engineer planets for everyone and call it a day.
Last edited:
You can only have rights if you have obligations, and NPCs in this game are a bunch of cheating a-holes. Once they follow the same rules as we do, I will be happy to see them use the same advantages.
I see engineers as a difficulty slider - if you are not a combat focused player or struggle against the AI engineers allow you to make your equipment more effective against them. If you are really good at combat you don't need to engineer your ship so much (but you can still play in easy mode if you want). The only part of the game where most engineering is really needed (ie aside from FSD range etc) is against an unknown player.
I don't think anyone would want every NPC to be buffed up to full G5 PvP levels, but just enough to provide variety and challenge. Just like how not all players fly around in maxed out G5 modded ships all the time, NPCs should use the full range of modded stuff (with 90% of ships not using any modded modules, engineered stuff should still be somewhat special). By all means, put average players slightly higher on the power curve than NPCs, but we should still be on the same curve rather than players occupying the far overpowered end while NPCs get stuck at the bottom useless end. The problem is not that not every NPC is a fully G5 modded leviathan, the problem is that none of them are - there's currently a massive gulf between top NPCs and even moderately modded player ships.
A player that wants to go on a power trip would still be able to go around picking on random little ships around nav beacons, that makes sense even in-universe. However, when players can wade through entire wings of "elite" ranked ships in a conflict zone, the allegedly greatest pilots in the galaxy outfitted with some of the finest military equipment available, then we have a problem. Facing off against a collection of mostly harmless eagles should be a trivial display of power for any established player, but the rare sight (and it should be rare, not the dime-a-dozen like it is currently) of a significant elite opponent or wing of smaller elites should be a serious challenge for even the best of players.
Last edited:
Couldn't they simply implement a flag of some sort. If the players ship fitted with any Engineer modifications then game on. If not then no engineering for the NPC either.
Last edited:
[haha] Bad Jay! (But have a ton of virtual rep anyway).
On topic. The question is framed from a combat orientated mindset. Not everyone plays this game for the combat. Those that do tend to gravitate towards meta, regardless of their vigorous (self?)denial. This discussion of NPC ability is purely a matter of their challenge or lack thereof in pew pew. In a game that has several other ways to play, looking at the AI challenge to opposing warships is only one part of the overall balance of the game. The impact of giving the AI facing your fellow players in non combat builds engineered weapons would be devastating!
The game, in my opinion, is too combat focused already. I'm looking forward to the coming season for the promised adjustments to trade, exploration and mining. I couldn't give a monkeys about a new crop of bfgs!
I sure as heck don't want the AI, already hounding me in bigger and better armed ships, to come after me with death rays and doomsday devices when my focus is on trucking, or surveying, or alleviating/profiteering from outbreaks and famines. There are quite enough murder hobos in uber engineered battleships to contend with already, I don't need random NPCs joining the party!Look at it this way. I like combat flight sims- who doesn't?- but I'm not keen on towing gliders in a transport plane when there are squadrons of late war fighters buzzing around. There aren't demands from Il-2 players for massive buffs to defending AI fighters from the bomber simmers. Why should we, flying the ED equivalent of Dakotas and Ju-52s, suddenly insist that the already powerful AI get access to better weapons and even aircraft, just because we, as players, can choose to fly P-51Ks and Ta-152s?
If the un-engineered AI isn't providing you with enough of a challenge, can I suggest you try white knighting at a CG? Salt miners are rarely even halfway decent stick jockeys, but they always seem to have the very best toys to play with. Knock yourself out!
I vote A. Happily.
I think ideally, part of the rebalance of Engineering will mean (and it seems to now in beta, a little bit) that early engineering grades see dramatic benefits, with exponentially smaller increases in module quality as you near the top end of grade 5. That should help that out a lot.
That and the whole "living breathing galaxy means ships not spawned just for you" thing.
I think ideally, part of the rebalance of Engineering will mean (and it seems to now in beta, a little bit) that early engineering grades see dramatic benefits, with exponentially smaller increases in module quality as you near the top end of grade 5. That should help that out a lot.
That and the whole "living breathing galaxy means ships not spawned just for you" thing.
Last edited:
NPC rights .. I thought this would be something else .. "Yeah I do treat them differently ..."
I like the idea of tying NPC 'strength' to region rather than combat rank. Want a safe ride ? Stick to high sec. Want a challange ? Try an Anarchy system. As it is now everwhere feels more or less the same, the NPC's encountered seem pretty much random in ability (although limited by rank).
I'd like there to be less uniformity in the environment in that sense, people will have a better idea of what areas are best for their chosen playstyles.
On a related but side topic, I have no problems with NPC's 'cheating' (Not saying they are) for high tier combat players. If an AI needs to cheat (but still be beatable) to provide a challenge then why not ? Do you want to be Lord and Master and laugh off NPC's with a sneeze or do you want to find an NPC that actually poses a challenge (even if it does needs to cheat a little to do so) so you can feel a bit of sweat and start thinking about the rebuy screen when none of your friends are around. There's no right answer to that of course, either is vaild, but me personally I'd prefer the challenge.
On another side topic (sorry my mind does wander) ATR should (IMO) be unbeatable, one or two maybe (for the challenge) but once they swarm (or whatever tactic they might use) it's get out of Dodge or Die. They're not really intended as content I believe, more to enforce the new C&P. I think it's a step in the right direction.
just my 2c.
I like the idea of tying NPC 'strength' to region rather than combat rank. Want a safe ride ? Stick to high sec. Want a challange ? Try an Anarchy system. As it is now everwhere feels more or less the same, the NPC's encountered seem pretty much random in ability (although limited by rank).
I'd like there to be less uniformity in the environment in that sense, people will have a better idea of what areas are best for their chosen playstyles.
On a related but side topic, I have no problems with NPC's 'cheating' (Not saying they are) for high tier combat players. If an AI needs to cheat (but still be beatable) to provide a challenge then why not ? Do you want to be Lord and Master and laugh off NPC's with a sneeze or do you want to find an NPC that actually poses a challenge (even if it does needs to cheat a little to do so) so you can feel a bit of sweat and start thinking about the rebuy screen when none of your friends are around. There's no right answer to that of course, either is vaild, but me personally I'd prefer the challenge.
On another side topic (sorry my mind does wander) ATR should (IMO) be unbeatable, one or two maybe (for the challenge) but once they swarm (or whatever tactic they might use) it's get out of Dodge or Die. They're not really intended as content I believe, more to enforce the new C&P. I think it's a step in the right direction.
just my 2c.
Last edited: