I've been nothing but civil, as always. And have no idea what insult you are referring to?
Anyway, the system map is already clearly marked by safety. Maybe there should be a filter for high sec on the Gal Map?
'Attack of the AI' III
- Thread starter Ian Phillips
- Start date
I've been nothing but civil, as always. And have no idea what insult you are referring to?
Anyway, the system map is already clearly marked by safety. Maybe there should be a filter for high sec on the Gal Map?
Having some players just flat out refuse to accept some added risk can't be the determining factor for where you find risk. Just as you can't follow the vocal minority of players that would like to see all AI turn in to Ravers. The Safe-Guys won't want the extra risk in Anarchy systems, and the Ultimate-Warriors won;t accept relative safety in high security systems either. I don;t even envision the AI in open space being the space potatoes we had before either. It's the compromise, the middle ground that should be sought.
It's not a silly idea, it's a redundant one. We already have "Forbidden Zones". They're called Low Security. And are mostly on the outskirts of the bubble. Also mixed in at the borders between the major powers and sprinkled around the Galaxy.
Then the reward needs to be worth it. It's like making every enemy in a Beat Em Up game equivalent to an opponent in a Fighting Game without giving the player any extra lives or continues.
Put another way, take a look at CoD multiplayer. While the opponents in CoD multiplayer aren't AIs the principle is the same, so bear with me here. It's very easy to get tons of kills in CoD, which creates the illusion that you are doing well, which makes people feel good. In fact, getting tons of kills in CoD is more rewarding for progression than bothering with objectives so naturally all people care about is getting tons of kills, as the more people you kill the better tools you get to kill people faster. This is essentially the 2.0 RES bounty hunting climate; the only measure of success is getting a ton of kills as quickly as possible so that you can upgrade and kill the same targets but faster. The 2.1 AI would be more like Halo 3, which is slower-paced and more tactical, resulting in generally fewer kills per player per match (with evenly skilled players) the individual kill is not as important as achieving the objective of the game. However, the reward structure is still set up in the 2.0 mould of CoD, which only rewards quantity of kills rather than quality of experience.
Anarchy isn't a security rating, it's a type of government. A common mistake. You can have high security anarchy systems.
In effect I basically end up playing ironman, because I don't care for the immersion breaking death mechanics. It's kind of anti-meta, if you will. I want to play as if I'm telling the narrative of the character I'm playing, role playing even to an extent. Though I don't play as if I'm the character so much as if the character were me if I was a part of the game universe.
I'm not really sure of the need to play a self imposed ironman mode though, especially when it's so difficult to die in this game, unless you go looking for trouble, bite off more than you can chew, or don't know what you're getting yourself into and how to prepare for it and what to do. As I mentioned before, the NPCs have only sent me to the rebuy screen twice in over a year of playing the game.
Last edited:
So because I have spent time playing games, I am unable to comment? This is remarkable since quite a few long time players (who are complaining about AI difficulty) are apparently free to do so?
So not a "profoundly bad example" then. Stick to the topic, hey.
The default behaviour in minecraft is that mobs spawn; including 'bad' mobs at night. That that can be overridden is contextually relevant to the game, and also that the person who first starts playing, is even aware that they can. Given the entire argument is that noobs apparently don't know jack about ED, you can't claim they are somehow sentient enough to manage game settings, but not sentient enough to handle some risk.
There's a bit of a logic hurdle there. Also i'm happy for new starters to speak for themselves; i'm not a new starter, why the heck would I presume I can speak on their behalf? .. (and yet so many do).
If they return to a high-sec system, there are security forces everywhere, and they respond in short time scales. This is a vast improvement prior to turning up about 10 minutes after a commander died (if at all). So in fact, this is an improvement.
Also in a private group you can invite a friend to assist (if open isn't a comfortable and you tend to rock and roll in solo). In solo (for the PVE enthusiast) you can avoid any commander behaviour, so it's just AI between you and the final system station. Given you can filter on 'No economy' in the galaxy map, it's also possible to navigate virtually to your front door inside of empty systems, then make the last hop, which brings the risk vector down considerably.
Lastly (but not by any means the only option) you can employ the services of many RP groups who live for protection detail; they will get you wherever you need to go. There are a ton of risk mitigation options.
In order to make the return risk free for an explorer, always, it has to be risk free for all, in general. This impacts the entire community. As it is, security forces are being neutered due to the reduction in dangerous and elite ships in an instance (or SC). They still rock up very quickly (if you have report crimes on) so there's actually support if you get into trouble.
Honestly, this is pretty much like saying "please remove risk for me, so I can ignore it, unless I decide i'd like some". I am concerned for the future of ED, because this will make adding hostile alien races effectively impossible. Yes, risk is thrust on us. Whether we like it or not. It's not supposed to be risk free. It was never ever supposed to be risk free.
I can foresee where alien races are entirely decamped to their own systems, never leave and commanders have to trapse half-way across the universe to even see one, because we can't risk possibly seeing them in case we don't want to. Is that actually logical?
I am absolutely in full support of AI that are more contextually relevant. Absolutely. But not just stupid space potato that never appear because that's easier. The fact that Frontier have rolled back so many changes already, I am sure has not be lost on those determined to extinguish all risk.
Last edited:
The AI is about right but what is really NOT OK are the endless LOOPS the AI ships fly (esp. big ones). The are ALWAYS SITTING in front of you. ENDLESS LOOPS without a chance to get on their 6. It feels like they are cheating and it makes me very, very angry while fighting. It feels wrong and like a cheat. If an experienced commander can't outmanouver bigger ships anymore at all, the fight feels sheit! [squeeeee]
Last edited:
Precisely. Relegating Risk to a walled off Instances turns the overwhelming majority of the Galaxy a commuter highway, or rail line, rather than a living breathing place.
Last edited:
Absolutely. The AI is about right now. Only thing is the big ones aren't outmanouverable anymore (at least in a Python). That's a bit annoying.
That's pretty much how i view it as well.
I tend to die a bit more often, mostly from an attitude of 'Full speed ahead and damn the torpedos' which means I fight when I should run. I think that there's a misconception that all Ironman players are rick averse, I am not, I accept that CMDR death is part of the game and push my (limited) skills to the edge.
All this highlights the problem with balancing a game for many different people. I don't think that many would want to play what I consider a perfect game. The thing I try to do is adapt my playing style as much as possible to the game to give me an experience I'm happy with. It is just madness to want the game to adapt to me, it's not going to happen and will just lead to disappointment.
The trick to flanking any ship is to loop around their lateral side. Not above or below. The side. Yaw is slower than pitch, and this forces them to roll so they can pitch towards you again. At which point you've already flanked them. You don't always need to get on their exact 6. Just flank them enough so that their damage is heavily reduced, and they can't get a fixed weapon lock on you.
Will give it a try tonight.
Hmmm, your head can't figure out how to counter endless loop, hmmm?
It takes practice. Much easier to do in smaller agile ships. But I can "sort of" do it in an FDL. Not sure about a Python.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I'm sure he knows about using reverse, but he was asking how to flank an enemy with good flying.
This is the current stopping point in the argument.
People want areas taped off so the danger is clear?
IT IS - but there are a vocal wodge of players who Do Not Want ANY action - they complained about it with 2.0 and they're complaining about it now wanting all interdiction to be voluntary and to be able to go/mine/do anything anywhere they want unmolested.
They're not happy with staying in high-sec space and security, they want to go to that pretty system with the pristine rings mine 300t of painite and fly it back and have fun trading without being attacked - and that's fine but it's a totally different game to the one that was sold to EVERYONE - at no point did they suggest the galaxy is risk free.
As such we can't have the proper discussion we should be having about the matchmaking and why the experience is uneven for similar pilots doing similar things, and many important posts about that get lost under discussions of difficulty levels and features that already exist because they need to keep being reiterated at the people who do not care and do not want to play that game.
This morning I'm more amenable to a "take it easy" setting available via galmap that refuses to plot to systems below medium security or to unknown systems. Make the border of safety clear, and be explicit once more about this being a dangerous cut-throat galaxy not a planetarium and that this is as far as it goes - if Frontier cave on this then they may as well utterly forget about any kind of alien threat, the people they cater to will just want to turn it's danger off.
Last edited:
I think most of the fanboy crowd are either trolls or functionally illiterate at this point. Like frostypaw here.
Its been stated dozens of times that the main gripe is 2 fairly distinct things:
1) interdiction frequency and matchmaking (being pitted against the games hardest enemies while being harmless, carrying 1 ton of cargo, and flying in highsec happens. Stop avoiding that fact).
2) cheating combat AI that operates under different rules than players.
Ususally people are frustrated at the state of the game that arises out of the combination of those 2. Nobody minds hard enemies existing. Its incredibly dishonest to claim we want a no-risk game. Shame on you for such misrepresentation. If you need to stoop to such low levels to boost your own self-worth then boy do you have issues.
Its been stated dozens of times that the main gripe is 2 fairly distinct things:
1) interdiction frequency and matchmaking (being pitted against the games hardest enemies while being harmless, carrying 1 ton of cargo, and flying in highsec happens. Stop avoiding that fact).
2) cheating combat AI that operates under different rules than players.
Ususally people are frustrated at the state of the game that arises out of the combination of those 2. Nobody minds hard enemies existing. Its incredibly dishonest to claim we want a no-risk game. Shame on you for such misrepresentation. If you need to stoop to such low levels to boost your own self-worth then boy do you have issues.
Last edited:
YOU might not - and that's great, I have utterly zero issue with you guys and entirely back up your point
The problem is your genuine issues are being conflated with the zero-threat people and it's making your arguments look unfairly weak - I'm actually on your side here arguing for the same points, but getting aggro anyway. If you read you'll find I myself have posted a bunch of times about the matchmaking and the SC-scanning NPCs who can teleport into instances before you arrive there........ how are you reading that as me being a functionally illiterate troll????
Don't fall for the bate, mate.
Sometimes it's best to just let people spout off in their own corners and leave well enough alone.
I challenge you to find more than a couple of folks that state they expect the game to have areas that are high reward and risk-free. Thats a very uncharitable and dishonest representation of the complaints people are making, hence why I lumped you in with the git-gud crowd.
A couple of folks, if indeed you find any, could be just trolls you know?
A couple of folks, if indeed you find any, could be just trolls you know?