And how did support respond?
'Attack of the AI' III
- Thread starter Ian Phillips
- Start date
They didn't, because he's never reported a bug.
Rule, what rule?
You lost 144 million in four rebuys.That's the easy way to learn.
He didn't have the chance to rebuy. It's so easy to judge others, without ever experiencing the same problems.
(And please don't patronize me-I know the game inside out. I have been playing since the first alpha-personally I don't have an issue with the enhanced AI. )
Last edited:
It wasn't about his rebuy problems ... Most of the scenarios he described were just implausible.
And I'm not patronizing anyone here.
You know, if you're suddenly going to fix AI levels for Anarchy vs High Sec systems, at least have some cover story for it and put it in game, instead of hiding it in Patch notes that no-one ever reads...
There seems to be a lot of people complaining about the new AI. They deserve respect and attention.
I know, but I'm talking about a single CMDR ^^
I keep having to repeat this so maybe I need to make a special thread:
Anarchy is a government type, not a security rating. You can have Anarchy systems with a HIGH security rating and these systems can be quite safe
So it is NOT Anarchy vs High Sec, but rather Low vs High Sec.And by the way, the AI rank difference between the two systems can be quite severe, especially if you are allied with one of the minor factions in a high sec system. When I was puttering around in my allied minor faction systems, I was getting mostly harmless NPCs with a handful of Experts and Master AI. Now that I have wandered into more dangerous territory, medium security control system with no allies, I am now finally seeing dangerous and above NPCs again. The difference in higher population Low sec is even more dramatic.
Respect was a few pages back.
As for deserving attention I agree; however the main focus of that attention should be on establishing the bona fides of any particular situation. In a majority of cases, when that's been done the situation seems to be something avoidable.
One thing I really hope FD do not end up doing here is pitching this at the 'I just want to fly around' crowd. Microsoft Flight Sim lets you do that; this is supposed to be a living and breathing galaxy. I'm sorry but I've seen so many posts from people basically saying 'I want to opt out of anything that doesn't involve me snuggling up in my onesie and slippers in the cockpit of my C rated Python' and I'm pretty much sick of hearing it.
They lost more players through it being boring (especially with those who then chose to take it out on humans instead) than they will lose by it being exciting and challenging. They're just different people.
A lot of respect has been given Olrik, you join us at the tail end of a tidal wave of advice
Anarchy is a government type, not a security rating. You can have Anarchy systems with a HIGH security rating and these systems can be quite safe
That raises an interesting point, actually. Anarchic regions in the real world tend to be dangerous, lawless places. have you noticed any correlation between Government type and security rating?
The thing is. Since the Government are providing the security (IE police), in theory Anarchic systems ought to have no security at all. The littoral meaning of Anarchy is "No Leadership Hierarchy" (An -without Archy- above. Compare with "Monarchy" "One Above" ect) - which isn't the way us familial primates are supposed to work (it's ingrained into us to form communities and have leaders).
In theory Anarchy isn't so much a system of government as a status (IE Absence) of it. In theory all Anarchy regions ought to have no security at all, but in practice generally you end up with local militia, local warlords or self-appointed volunteer constables providing at least some measure of law-and-order, if only for reasons of self-interest.
The security rating has 2 functions:
1) to measure the degree of Police interference on ANYONE's behalf if a law is broken
2) to measure the degree of factional interference on behalf of allied ships
If you attack a ship in a High Security Anarchy system, then you will be facing, not police, but rather the armed guardian ships for that minor faction. So in high security a mafia infested system, the mafia act like the police, but only for allied ships. Likewise, having a negative reputation with an Anarchy system minor faction acts exactly like being "wanted" but only with that particular minor faction.
So no, Anarchic systems do not have "no security at all". But instead have a thunderdome-like "barter town" security.
Contrast this with low security lawful systems. The police will respond regardless of who is attacked, but only after enough time has passed that the ship in question was essentially "on their own" for the bulk of the fight/flight.
Last edited:
That's exactly how it works
With that being said - once upon a time, in our galaxy, on the planet called Riedquat, nothing at all was illegal...
Obviously...
That's actually quite realistic. Generally in Anarchic regions you end up with some measure of relatively effective security being provided in certain areas by various factions. A typical example of that might be where foreign interests (eg natural resources, business, embassys etc) are located and a private security firm in employed. A typical example might be an foreign-owned oil well being protected by a PMC in a disputed region. Of course they're chiefly interested in protecting their own interests, but will often police the area generally as a part of keeping the general character of the area safer, and gathering intelligence. You also tend to get local "characters" setting up ad-hoc police forces. This might be enforcers for the local mob (minor crime is bad for business, major crime is good business), or volunteer vigilante types, or theist police, or neighbouring factions attempting to keep the peace next door (albeit usually with an eye on moving in themselves) or simply a foreign government who has interests in the area they wish to protect.
Interestingly enough there is a inverse correlation between the general security of a region and the lethality of it's police. Look at the Police in the UK and Japan (armed with only a bendy stick). Carry out a Murder in London or Tokyo and I can promise you it'll get a more thorough, effective and prompt investigation than it will in most countries. Start shooting in either city and I can promise you well trained paramilitary-style police with high-tech guns will turn up very, very quickly and you'll be under constant surveillance whilst you do it. However there isn't that much of an overt police presence, as they've very safe places to be in the first place.
Interesting, isn't it?
I'm an old hand at the game but new to the forums. I'm also getting hounded by elite NPCs though clean, not wanted, expert rank and carrying nothing other than engineer tat in my hold.
I can handle myself and can escape the bloody interdiction but it sure is frustrating now.
And for Red Flanders: I don't wish to fly about with no care but 7 jumps each with an elite NPC spawning behind me upon entering the system is eroding my joy cheese to nothing. It's broken, for me.
I can handle myself and can escape the bloody interdiction but it sure is frustrating now.
And for Red Flanders: I don't wish to fly about with no care but 7 jumps each with an elite NPC spawning behind me upon entering the system is eroding my joy cheese to nothing. It's broken, for me.
That doesn't mean it's not happening. It just means it's not supposed to happen if everything is working as intended.
Repeat after me:
"The fact that I haven't experienced a bug does not mean that no-one has."
Since you added the elipses, I wonder if you might have misunderstood what I meant there.
If you think I'm a player whose game time and mentality are combat-centric you're very much mistaken. I enjoy combat for sure; I've made about 300m of my credits from bounty hunting and will cheerfully head off to a res site, compromised nav beacon or combat zone in my Vulture, FAS or FDL when the mood for pew pew is upon me.
However I don't spend all of my time in the game doing it by any stretch of the imagination. I have a Python which is permanently equipped with a great mining build, an Anaconda which I use for trade and which only has a few beams on it for defence, although I think I'll probably refit that into a pure run and jump build next time I take it out, mines chaff and point defence, because I don't have any interest in trying to fight in ships that aren't built for fighting.
Most recently I've spent the majority of my game time in exploration. I only came back into the bubble when engineers dropped specifically to upgrade my exploration Asp with some engineer mods; I haven't even visited Todd and Liz yet to look at weapons mods and I'm in no hurry to do so. I've been picking up the stuff I need for engineers in either the exploration Asp which has temporarily lost its AFMUs and class 4 SRV bay (replaced with a refinery, collector limpets and a class 5 cargo rack) and when I'm going looking for loot from ships I've been using my general purpose missions ship which is a FAS but with 40 tons of cargo space instead of the multiple hull reinforcements that I run on it for pure combat.
When I'm trading I want to trade, not fight, when I'm mining I want to mine not fight and when I'm exploring I'm precluded from fighting by the fact I don't run any weapons on my exploration ship.
However I don't believe that any of those activities should give me some kind of free pass whereby I can expect to just waft around being ignored by all of the virtual denizens of this supposedly tough and unforgiving galaxy. If I'm flying around with 300 tons of valuable metals or smuggling slaves, I expect those activities to be risky within the context of the galaxy we're supposed to be operating in and by 'risky' I don't mean facing an occasional Mostly Harmless Adderwho might tickle me with his class 1 beam a couple of times until I boost my Anaconda right through his cockpit, I mean facing a genuine risk of getting fragged and losing my ship.
I said earlier in the thread that I got interdicted into a star by an Elite Imperial Eagle with railguns last night which then proceeded to go crazy on me whilst I waited for my FSD to cool down. I was throwing that Asp around like a madman trying to keep his guns off me, obviously couldn't outrun him in a ship with 5D thrusters on and only had 71 MJ of shields which aren't doing much against railguns even with 4 pips in them. I managed to jump out with 8% of my hull left and I'm going to be totally honest here, I actually jumped up out of my chair, gave the npc (OK, my screen) the finger and let out a little whoop as I did it. I'm 45 years old by the way.
It's not that I can't afford the rebuy, I could rebuy that ship 100x from my current credit reserves, but I would have lost my cargo which included 7 tons of Praseodymium which I was going to use to get my level 2 FSD upgrade from Felicity. The whole experience was tense, exciting and because it included genuine risk, I felt genuinely rewarded by my escape. It was in short massive fun. I haven't had an experience like that since maybe three or four weeks into playing the game and it was sorely missed.
That's what I meant when I said I hope the game doesn't end up pitched at the 'just want to fly around' brigade. I know not everybody plays this game for a combat focused experience, i.e. wanting to spend their night shooting at things and if the game forced players to do so, it would not only defeat the entire point of a sandbox game it would also betray the heritage of the game too, since the previous iterations always gave players a high degree of freedom in terms of their choice of activity. I didn't 'engage in combat' last night though, I couldn't have since I didn't have any guns on my ship. I evaded someone who was trying to kill me. It's not the same thing.
If it loses that and goes back to being a game where I can just toddle round all night never having to face any risk whatsoever, I think it would be a huge backward step. As it is now, the game provides ways for players who are unwilling, ill-equipped or insufficiently skilled to avoid combat, or to escape from it. I'm not making any value judgements at all about those players, they're all playing the game the way that they want to, doing the things they want to do and that's great, it's what the game is about.
When it comes to players wanting a game which will simply never present them with a risk situation at all though, I can't get behind that because there is no way to implement that without sanitising the experience for those of us who want and expect a galaxy dominated by three superpowers with historical enmity (two of whom are effectively engaging in a cold war) and with numerous groups of pirates and terrorists lurking in every other system to have some inherent danger present at all times.
Whether you agree or disagree with that is obviously your choice to make. I only bothered explaining it because if I'm going to be judged at all, I'd at least prefer to be judged on my actual views.
Last edited: