'Attack of the AI' III

[howardtay]

Super Idea along with another that a CMDR brought up that involves individual intensity sliders.

I don't think individual sliders would work.

 

[Mohrgan]

I don't think individual sliders would work.

I'm not all fired up about sliders either. But, if you tied the difficulty chosen to the reward earned you may find some balance.

 

[Ziljan]

Once again and over and over again. It has nothing to do with ME being safe. I'm fine out there but, I can understand those that aren't. Let's not keep making this mistake again. There's no reason to make outlandish statements. I never said anything like you;re suggesting. You're just attempting to negate an idea with insults.

Your idea is insulting to both myself, the integrity of this game, and to the intelligence of people who have a handful of skills left to learn.

The analogy was meant to make clear exactly how ridiculous your suggestion sounds. If you find the comparson insulting, imagine how we feel when you suggest the same dismissive combat-ghetto "fix" over and over.

 

[Mohrgan]

Your idea is insulting to both myself, the integrity of this game, and to the intelligence of people who have a handful of skills left to learn.

The analogy was meant to make clear exactly how ridiculous your suggestion sounds. If you find the comparson insulting, imagine how we feel when you suggest the same dismissive combat-ghetto "fix" over and over.

I don't agree, and it didn't work. There is no insult in offering a way for players to control their exposure. If you take it that way, I'm sorry but, I can't read minds, and you're the only one insulted so far.

 

[Iskariot]

I think I need to play much more to get a good picture of the AI.
She can be tough and scary (which is cool), but also weird things happen like an Elite Clipper circling around my Python in combat, nose pointed at me, but never firing a shot.

 

[Ziljan]

What?

That's...a really, really asinine comparison. And besides, isn't that exactly how it is now? Missions and CZ/RES/USS? What's wrong with keeping the hardcore action there?

If you can't see why combat-ghettos are not a solution, then you clearly only care about your sense of immersion. Asinine eh? Thou brayest too loudly.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Hmmm. CMkIV for combat... *shudders*. That thing is a complete pig in combat. Lol. I salute your audacity to point that thing at anything that didn't force you to. Lol.

I'm only attacking traders. I run from anything that attacks me, unless its a sidewinder or something. I did have a nice bit of combat with a Competent Fed Dropship. He got my shields down but i finished him off first. Next Dropship i tried though I had to run from, think he was Expert. Was a waste anyway, no decent cargo. Best to stick to dedicated trade ships.

 

[CMDR_Vyse]

Your idea is insulting to both myself, the integrity of this game, and to the intelligence of people who have a handful of skills left to learn.

The analogy was meant to make clear exactly how ridiculous your suggestion sounds. If you find the comparson insulting, imagine how we feel when you suggest the same dismissive combat-ghetto "fix" over and over.

If you can't see why combat-ghettos are not a solution, then you clearly only care about your sense of immersion. Asinine eh? Thou brayest too loudly.

No it isn't. Missions, CZs, USS, RES. Keep the hardcore action there and in Anarchy systems with a population of 100,000 or more. Why exactly is that a bad solution to this whole dilemma?

Setting your donkey of an insult aside, enlighten my why it's not a solution.

 

[Mohrgan]

If you can't see why combat-ghettos are not a solution, then you clearly only care about your sense of immersion. Asinine eh? Thou brayest too loudly.

We disagree, get over it. You said so, everyone who cares read it. Move on. Combat could still happen much as it does now. Of course everyone only cares about their own immersion. Your protests don;t appear to be all that altruistic either. Let's move on.

 

[Ziljan]

I don't agree, and it didn't work. There is no insult in offering a way for players to control their exposure. If you take it that way, I'm sorry but, I can't read minds, and you're the only one insulted so far.

You can control exposure on a System by System basis. No need to send combat kids into the instance-corner with a dunce cap.

Its giving away too much real estate to the careful bears. As in, not an equitable solution.

 

[Mohrgan]

I'm only attacking traders. I run from anything that attacks me, unless its a sidewinder or something. I did have a nice bit of combat with a Competent Fed Dropship. He got my shields down but i finished him off first. Next Dropship i tried though I had to run from, think he was Expert. Was a waste anyway, no decent cargo. Best to stick to dedicated trade ships.

Seal Clubber. Lol. I was tested by a Commander in an Adder while mining in a CMkIV. I could run, but fighting that thing was Agony. Wait I may have just hit on something...

 

[Agony_Aunt]

If you can't see why combat-ghettos are not a solution, then you clearly only care about your sense of immersion. Asinine eh? Thou brayest too loudly.

So, basically, you are saying, pilots with less skill should suck it up and take their punishment? Because that is one way we will get less players playing.

Its not a bad idea making certain areas more risk. If those areas are the higher difficult RES and CZ, its one way to do it, while leaving the lower ranked RES and CZ easier places to visit. This can be further modified by the security level of the system.

It then becomes a situation where everyone wins, because people can then find their own level of challenge.

You are against this on the grounds of immersion? Sometimes things have to be sacrificed in return to provide an enjoyable gameplay experience for all. Don't you agree?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Seal Clubber. Lol. I was tested by a Commander in an Adder while mining in a CMkIV. I could run, but fighting that thing was Agony. Wait I may have just hit on something...

LOL. I like to be unorthodox. However, for most players, they shouldn't be trying to fit round pegs in square holes, not unless they are willing to do so and accept the risks. I did take an Orca on a 20k LY round trip once.... i'm like that.

 

[Mohrgan]

You can control exposure on a System by System basis. No need to send combat kids into the instance-corner with a dunce cap.

Its giving away too much real estate to the careful bears. As in, not an equitable solution.

Realistically, is there that much difference in hiding things in certain systems, as apposed to my suggestion? I'm a combat kid, well not a kid. That's what I do. As you can tell I'm not insulted by the idea. Nice, one myth busted. Maybe you could find someone else to obsess over?

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

LOL. I like to be unorthodox. However, for most players, they shouldn't be trying to fit round pegs in square holes, not unless they are willing to do so and accept the risks. I did take an Orca on a 20k LY round trip once.... i'm like that.

Yup, that whole Agony thing. But, pretty soon you can take a bunch of peeps with you that around trip. Agony's Sightseeing Tours, your gateway to the galaxy.

 

[Ziljan]

So, basically, you are saying, pilots with less skill should suck it up and take their punishment? Because that is one way we will get less players playing.

Its not a bad idea making certain areas more risk. If those areas are the higher difficult RES and CZ, its one way to do it, while leaving the lower ranked RES and CZ easier places to visit. This can be further modified by the security level of the system.

It then becomes a situation where everyone wins, because people can then find their own level of challenge.

You are against this on the grounds of immersion? Sometimes things have to be sacrificed in return to provide an enjoyable gameplay experience for all. Don't you agree?

Nope not remotely what I was saying.

Making the WHOLE GALAXY safe, and a few scattered INSTANCES dangerous is not an equitable division of real estate.

Now if you want to divide the Galaxy into safer SYSTEMS, and less safe SYSTEMS, then you are getting closer to equitable division of "land".

 

[Zeta Legion]

Nope not remotely what I was saying.

Making the WHOLE GALAXY safe, and a few scattered INSTANCES dangerous is not an equitable division of real estate.

Now if you want to divide the Galaxy into safer SYSTEMS, and less safe SYSTEMS, then you are getting closer to equitable division of "land".

You guys are gonna get the thread locked if you keep insulting each other and we'll have to make yet another poll.

I do like the idea of safe/dangerous systems, provided they are clearly marked and can be actively sought out or avoided through a galaxy map filter.

 

[Ziljan]

Realistically, is there that much difference in hiding things in certain systems, as apposed to my suggestion?

It's the difference between playing Yahtzee in a closet and going to a planet sized arcade theme park.

 

[howardtay]

kofeyh, as someone who has put thousands of hours into both of those games, you are using a profoundly bad example here if you want to make a point. In Minecraft, you can literally turn off mobs from spawning or change their behavior however you please just from the base game functions alone, let alone what mods do to the game. In both Skyrim and Minecraft, you can turn down the difficulty to suit whatever pace you want to play the game at. Hell, in any MMO, the challenge comes only if you seek it out.

Is the explorer who has spent literal months out surveying seeking out challenge in coming back to the bubble only to be blown up by some meth head? What about the trader just seeking to make some cash, or the person who needs some money to buy a new ship or a new piece of kit to specialize the ship they're using further? Are they seeking challenge?

No. Challenge is being forced on them. Particularly explorers, who have to tool their ships correctly to maximize jump distance. They literally have no choice on what modules to fit on their ships, because that's what they need to visit certain locations in the galaxy. It is not up for debate. It is not up for discussion. They have to fit their ships a certain way, or they are not getting to their destinations.

You might well say "well then combat pilots and traders need to fit their ships accordingly" to which I respond that combat pilots have. They are largely unaffected by the change, other than a few unlucky souls. Traders and miners have no recourse. It's almost not worth doing either anymore. Even bounty hunters like myself have lost profit, all for the cravings of those who want a brutally hard game they can brag about playing.

I've posted a solution to the problem that would literally solve everything without costing the game its progress. It's really quite simple. If people who want a challenge want it, then they can designate places for it. Everyone else who doesn't can play their game in peace. Miners can mine, traders can trade, and bounty hunters can bounty hunt. The hardcore players have their area. It's a win-win for everyone.

I suggested exactly the same solution, call it a Forbidden Zone a section of the Galaxy that only the adrenaline junkies would want to visit, and this was regarded as a rubbish idea, but we already have these kind of places in hires zones, I don't understand why this idea is so unacceptable.

 

[Wyaston Hypatia]

Playing iron man mode, so probably a little risk adverse compared to most other commanders. I think its about right at the low end for me. A few deaths should teach a newer player what threat level they can cope with and to watch out for traps! FD got low spot on. High end seems to be a problem, lots of good commanders and not so good commanders with high ranks, I think this is the area that is going to be hardest to balance, I see both sides of the debate here - and have no great words of wisdom to help.

My only comment is (mostly) PvE only players such as myself got lazy in 1.4+.

Well said. I do wonder if those of us who play Ironman, have quite a different outlook on the game.
For me it's not the AI that's the issue (which I think is about right) but the lack of tools to easily make choices as to risk. System security is hidden behind map openings, cannot be easily visualise on the fly, and routes cannot be plotted to take this into account. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy entering a low sec or anarchy system, I just like to have a good heads-up that I am. Thinking about my actions and the consequences of them is also important but again this can be somewhat opaque in the game.
So FD don't need to change the AI, but they do need to improve the tools and information available to people to make good choices as to what to do.

 

[kofeyh]

Missions and CZ/RES/USS? What's wrong with keeping the hardcore action there?

Because even in such locations, commanders do not want risk. It's very clear there is a vocal group who refuse to accept any change to AI that represents risk. Regardless of location.

It can be distilled best as a driving push to move AI back to 2.0; sure, maybe no more spins, but definitely no risk. Risk should exist, regardless of Commander desires. Because it's an important element in the elite dangerous universe. Risk is important. As much so as "fun" is.