open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked GIVE US NPC AI
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 ... : last (21)

Author Topic

Noveron
Caldari
Aitnaru
Posted - 2009.01.15 23:17:00 - [451]
 

Edited by: Noveron on 15/01/2009 23:28:55
Edited by: Noveron on 15/01/2009 23:20:30
Smart NPC AI. The Lively EVE-Online Universe Experience.

I arrived a bit late for this thread and I had to look for it but I think I have some ideas taken from many different places that could help to enrich the PVE lively universe experience so please bear with me:

1 NPC real fits for fights. This has never been my concern this much but as someone has suggested, it is a very valid and interesting idea, it would also really help EVE npc's act tough and at the same time help with the so called "Need for speed" since npcs fitted as players and fighting more like them would be harder to take down and involve more risk, thus would help reducing the number of them needed to cause some havoc and spawn here and there. Instead of having multiple npcs that all shoot in the same boring and dumb and easy to tank way (although keeping the standard resistances for each faction should be a must),it would be good if in less number but more deadly playerish way, when fighting a raven npc, that raven npc would equip as much missile launchers with cruise or torpedo launchers as players usually do, with more or less the same kind of gear the players do, this gear would be better as you go down in sec.. so 1.0 to 0.1, which it would also be represented by bounty, npcs would be mostly tech1 and cheap named geared npcs in high sec and maybe used good named and some tech2 gear in low sec or 0.0 without making it too profitable but still thrilling and fun to fight with. So if you go to a belt with an npc fitted like that, you probably wouldnt be able to face two battleships at once in many cases (newbies and cheap equipped player bs's) but although its manageble demands some more challenge and maybe some more time.

Having the npcs customly fitted more or less the same type players do (2 or 3 different sets defined for each type of ship, or variations, depends on the time needed to code it) the enemy npc would drop the same as when you kill a human player's ship, some of its equipment and cargo, so you could even reduce the bounty a bit if in some cases, equipment dropped will be better, this will develop into another idea that continues ahead, the point is encouraging people to face npc ships, to get their loot, as every good game should be.

Anyways, for example, you go to a belt, in 0.3, a npc battlesip appears, you shoot each other, you win, you get its real part of the loot as like kill mails describe.

2 EVE universe pve like is TOO DAMN PREDICTABLE, you go to a 0.6 belt, you know what to expect, you get to a station surroundings you know what you will see, you go to a moon, you know you will see nothing interesting, there are so many empty and boring places in EVE.

As well as new expansion bring random wormholes and exploration goodies, it would be nice and dandy that not ALWAYS the same type of "event" appears in the same sectors in the same spot ALWAYS (am I clear?, not ALWAYS).

Alright that in sectors like 1.0, 0.9, and 0.8 are (roleplayed) more policed and there is less chance of heavy npc ships and stuff is showing up, but please, have some battleship and battlecruisers spawn once in a while in sectors like 0.7 and bellow. It doesnt even have to be on top of 0km point of X belt so people dont complain or is affected much, it can be 200km away, or in moons and planets, or a gathering of ships in places where players dont usually hangout (hideouts), but they must be where players can go if they want to, and sometimes will be using explation, sometimes not, why? to encourage player seach and gathering, to travel, to let them have RANDOM fun in not fixed places, not always in X spot not always in an exploration way (not always the same damn boring way, get it?) , I know there is exploration, but some of this random events could need exploration and some shouldnt, a lively universe does not always behave the same way!

Noveron
Caldari
Aitnaru
Posted - 2009.01.15 23:20:00 - [452]
 

Edited by: Noveron on 15/01/2009 23:31:44
Heck it would be great to see a group of NPC Battleships (or assault ships or bc's) or rogue drones showing up in a 0.8 sector 250km from a gate fighting with concord or race navy, in which concord or race navy has warped to (you actually see them align and warp) and dropped a small beacon for those players who want to assist in the kill warping there directly. (alright these npcs could drop a bit less giving their fair share of loot automatically to navy ships but... it would be nice for a change to see some live action in which you can get involved or not) to see something resembling something more realistic or entertaining, even if just by looking at it. Why is it fun? Because its not predictable, it does not happen always the same way in the same form in the same place.

Another Example: Group of two medium geared BS npc's appear at 250km of Belt 3 of 0.6 sector. Someone sounds the alarm in local as they approach slowly the mining spot of a few newbie miners. Group of avid fighting players show up in fleet to handle the battleships, also is good to those playing defense of the mining party, just an example but many more come to mind, be imaginative.


3 Travelling and interactable npcs. Why dont they use gates? Why we just see indy's at 80km from a station and then dissapearing? Why dont they warp and have their own agenda? I dont mean to crowd EVE with live npcs and make it laggy, there are enough players for it, but just have SOME with a chance for a player to follow them up and find something cool (or not) at a certain moon or something.

A few BOTS here and there that do something that can trigger an interesting event or not. For example: player sees a party of 4 caldari npc indys escorted with caldari navy battleship they look like caldari navy ships but there is something suspicious since they are undocking frm a gallenty factory station, so he decides to follow and manages to trail them to a 0.5 sector 2 jumps away in a secret spot 100km away from a moon, they seem to be dropping something at a random complex of structures guarded with neutral sentry guns (they are doing contraband!!! but concord hasnt noticed), he can wait at certain distance until ships are gone and scan the complex and just face the sentries (to avoid the npc's care about him) or get close by risking getting shot at by the whole party. At the end player decides to attack the whole party with a couple of friends.. and one of the players got hurt badly by the sentries and the battleship but they managed to kill them all and return home safe. The npc's were carrying some drugs along some emorphite and zydrine worth 9-10 millions and some cool named gear from the bs (or even a tech2 device) (random appealing figure).

Sounds like a nice encounter huh? There could be several types of random events to help the player interact with the EVE Universe in a lively experience, not some fixed boring and ultra-balanced ways to avoid whinning as it is now.

4 News and chronicles in the web are alright. I respect those who like to read chronicles in the web site but what I believe most of us players want is to interact with stories and events that happens in the game.

Example: A news about how certain race police or navy has detected a plague or rogue drones will be swarming X area around X time of the day according to sensors (can be different spots in different areas of the universe to not overcrowd one sector), it could be in the form of news posted at downtime, there is a plague of rogue drones in X area and players will be able to go there and fight for the plague, even ask a (random space local police agent) in which you can temporarily enlist to (a mission) kill rogue drones and get paid for it, the thing will last about 30 minutes or 2 hours or what and you get paid by number of kills, drones are in planet X orbit threatening the collonies living in it and you have to go there and get paid for number of kills.

Noveron
Caldari
Aitnaru
Posted - 2009.01.15 23:22:00 - [453]
 

More news could just involve events in which the player does not take part but sees the result, for example.. "minmatar pirate faction attacks X station in X place" and when you get there after downtime you see it partly destroyed. I know this can sound a bit boring, but the idea behind it, as well as there can be better examples, is to make the universe look lively and not STILL as it is.

Another example. Emperor X of the amarr has decided to offer X reward to those who pledge loyalty by doing X mission at X site involving killing, searching or exploring X, rewarding with fair quantity of ISK and a special valuable tag needed for LP rewards for example, all this involves certain amount of role play and can change as well as chronicle and news and is fun to play and follow the news and with the in-game browser for fun things to do that are not always the same boring missions your agent gives you (because your agent always gives you the same 15 boring missions) and also would encourage players that do not mission to involve in events that happen in the game.

5 "Missions on the fly!!" Similar to some ideas I posted before and COSMOS, but you can be approached by (note the wording, you dont approach them, they approach you) different npcs in space asking you to do something for them, that can vary from carrying illegal wares to check certain site in person, exploration, or kill x npc in X place (being it legal or not), etc. etc. etc.

Hope you like these proposals for a lively and fun pve universe.

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:52:00 - [454]
 

Can we get multiple options of the same mission acceptace (for example fleet needs help you can fufill multiple roles in the same scenario, npc ai changes to reflect your role in it, logistic ships for once.)

Also allied ships (yellow instead of red) need to be allied.

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2009.01.16 13:08:00 - [455]
 

Originally by: CCP Incognito
The thread is sort of drifting in to balancing apposed to AI, think we can steer back onto topic?


I'd love to return to AI techniques and suggest things you can try. The problem is that it's unclear for me where you guys are at now and what you've been doing to get there and where you want to go with this.

Last time you discussed a new deployment scheme for NPC scripts/AI, so that you'll be able to deploy different scripts/AI for different rats. Given that we're now discussing deploying different scripts/AI for 'wormhole' NPCs than for the other NPCs, can we now assume that this sprint has been successfully concluded?

You then discussed that the scripts/AI for the wormhole NPCs included a number of improvements, for example the way they move across the battlefield, the way they('re going to) use EW, etc. Am I right in guessing that this is what you are currently working on?

If this is the case, could you give us some indication on what you are improving, what problems you are encountering, how you are solving this, and what aspects you want to address in the future? I can understand that it might be a lot of work to give an exhaustive list of things and that you don't want to give away too much detail before beta/deployment. However, you could take up one example that would be indicative of the problems you are encountering and your way of solving it, without giving everything away.

The reason I'm asking for more information is that without it, it is rather hard for me to give proper advice, or to place it within the proper AI context. It also makes it difficult to suggest a direction in which to think with regard to putting things on the backlog for future development. Assuming here that script/AI development for EVE by CCP will not end after the next expansion, but will, instead, be a continuous development effort further on (which isn't very clear right now).

Reading between the lines, I think I can sort of guess the following has happened. You probably have your script/AI deployment scheme up a running now. So the team has been moved to take a closer look at the script/AI itself. From that you have identified a number of areas which can be improved within the time-frame available. Since you want to play it safe, you've probably decided to stay close to what is available and which you know works. As such, you're using the same type of script/AI that you have, but added more features to it. This made it more complex, and probably increased its information need. By doing this you've also made it more computationally expensive to run the script/AI, so you're probably testing/measuring this now. At this point, I would probably have chosen a modular approach, i.e. have different subscripts/sub-AIs handling different aspects of the behaviour, as this would allow you to modularise your computational requirements and functionality. On the other hand, this could already have been the case, or this would not be necessary at this stage. At this stage you're probably recognising that there's a limit to how far you can go with this approach. Is this, in some way, what has happened?

At this point, assuming the above is correct, I have to point out that you are not doing AI proper. Not to be a spoil-sport, but as I said before, for AI to be AI, it needs to evolve, it needs to learn. Even the end product of an AI (a script or behaviour description) is not AI if it remains static. However, you do seem to work towards a situation where applying an AI (a learning one that is) will become a viable option. The question is whether this is still in the cards for future development? Because if it isn't, if this has been ruled-out already, well then my involvement in this thread is rather unnecessary. You'd be better served with something like a level-designer instead of an AI guy.

Sorry for all the questions, but I have little to go on right now. I recognise that you're restricted in what you can say here.

Noveron
Caldari
Aitnaru
Posted - 2009.01.17 10:42:00 - [456]
 

making a real AI is surely hard as hell to do, but do something that resembles like an AI would do based on certain variable actions.. is easier and looks closer to what the goal of having smarter AI.. I think.

CCP Incognito

Posted - 2009.01.20 09:34:00 - [457]
 

Edited by: CCP Incognito on 20/01/2009 09:47:37
Bartholomeus Crane you are correct we abandoned the idea of a learning adaptive AI do to time constraints. We are doing a reactive AI, I know you would argue that this is not AI, but it will make combat with the wormhole NPC more adaptive and less predictable. And that is the goal.

We have left the door open to work on a adaptive learning AI by allowing us to change the underlying code for each pirate in the game with a simple DB update. As you can see from the CSM note there is allot for us to be doing, so I would not hold your breath for us doing a learning AI in the near future. But it is still on the backlog as a mother of all story's.

We are finishing up the third sprint as we speak (really should be working on bugs ATM rather than typing to you) and have added a major new capability to the NPC's.

< insert drum roll >

Wormhole NPC can now multi-target, and target switch. For instance a NPC can be shooting all guns and missiles at it's primary target. At the same time it can turn it's ECM on that pesky logistics cruiser that keeps remote repairing it's primary target.

If another target becomes a more desirable target, the NPC can switch it's primary target to the new target.

This task took allot of Re factoring of the current code, then a relative small change to make the NPC use the new feature. now in the future it is a simple matter of just writing a little bit of code to make the choice of what secondary target able systems should be use

I am not going to go into the criteria that NPC will use to evaluate what it should use on what. Have to leave something for you to learn the hard way:)



Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2009.01.20 10:06:00 - [458]
 

Originally by: CCP Incognito
Edited by: CCP Incognito on 20/01/2009 09:47:37
Bartholomeus Crane you are correct we abandoned the idea of a learning adaptive AI do to time constraints. We are doing a reactive AI, I know you would argue that this is not AI, but it will make combat with the wormhole NPC more adaptive and less predictable. And that is the goal.

We have left the door open to work on a adaptive learning AI by allowing us to change the underlying code for each pirate in the game with a simple DB update. As you can see from the CSM note there is allot for us to be doing, so I would not hold your breath for us doing a learning AI in the near future. But it is still on the backlog as a mother of all story's.

We are finishing up the third sprint as we speak (really should be working on bugs ATM rather than typing to you) and have added a major new capability to the NPC's.

< insert drum roll >

Wormhole NPC can now multi-target, and target switch. For instance a NPC can be shooting all guns and missiles at it's primary target. At the same time it can turn it's ECM on that pesky logistics cruiser that keeps remote repairing it's primary target.

If another target becomes a more desirable target, the NPC can switch it's primary target to the new target.

This task took allot of Re factoring of the current code, then a relative small change to make the NPC use the new feature. now in the future it is a simple matter of just writing a little bit of code to make the choice of what secondary target able systems should be use

I am not going to go into the criteria that NPC will use to evaluate what it should use on what. Have to leave something for you to learn the hard way:)



Now THAT sounds cool. Very Happy Thanks for the status update Incognito; I'd invite you to visit IRC to talk and hang around, but I guess you've got enough work for your remaining time as it is. Razz

Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
Posted - 2009.01.20 10:17:00 - [459]
 

Im scared dave

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2009.01.20 11:08:00 - [460]
 

Originally by: Nova Fox
Im scared dave

Quote:

Wormhole NPC can now multi-target, and target switch. For instance a NPC can be shooting all guns and missiles at it's primary target. At the same time it can turn it's ECM on that pesky logistics cruiser that keeps remote repairing it's primary target.

If another target becomes a more desirable target, the NPC can switch it's primary target to the new target.


\o/

Nefto Taak
Posted - 2009.01.20 11:40:00 - [461]
 

One of the best ideas in the Freelancer game of years back, was that not all 'illegal' groups would shoot you on sight. Some would have neutral standings. This led to occasions where they would randomly scan your cargo and if they found something they wanted they'd stick with you, demand you handed it over, gave you a short amount of time to do so and if you failed to do so they'd switch to being red and fire upon you until you either destroyed them or escaped. Escaping would leave standing as is, destroying would lower the standing slightly. It made hauling much more than just flying from A to B.

Anile8er
Five Fat Soldiers
Posted - 2009.01.20 12:19:00 - [462]
 

Jesus Christ we are getting some serious blocks of text here...... my eyes are hurting.

Not trolling, I posted a constructive thought a few pages back.


Hope to see change in NPC AI

Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2009.01.20 12:30:00 - [463]
 

I made a topic about this some time ago and I'm sure it's come up plenty of times, but just saying I think these ideas are brilliant Very Happy

Andrue
Amarr
Posted - 2009.01.20 12:38:00 - [464]
 

Originally by: CCP Incognito
Wormhole NPC can now multi-target, and target switch. For instance a NPC can be shooting all guns and missiles at it's primary target. At the same time it can turn it's ECM on that pesky logistics cruiser that keeps remote repairing it's primary target.
Oh I say!

Laughing

Ralitge boyter
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.01.20 13:36:00 - [465]
 

As a mission runner for the past four years or so I think I can add at least a little bit to this discussion...

Not fun: Take a drake, park it in the middle of a level 3 mission argo all and let rip the heavy missile launchers, and drones. Jump from gate to gate (takes more time then killing the rats) and do the same in all rooms, return to the agent (why don't we have lightspeed communication? should not only the delivery of goods require me to be in a station?) and ask for the next mission.

Fun: First of all less gates less waiting before I can finally shoot somehting. A mission should spawn a random selection of ships not a predefined set of always 3 cruisers 7 frigates and a battleship) use the alliance tournament way of balancing teams as an example, and give the mission a pool of ships to pick from.
Then make the battleships and some cruisers deploy drones (attack, ewar, repair) this implies less but stronger NPC's as drones cause an extra load on the server. Add the ability to use logistics for the NPC's I mean how hard could it be to make a NPC know that when their main battleship is being attacked it should try and use it's remote rep on it?
Then let the NPC's try and get out of range when their tank is about to die, the idea that a general in a major faction would sit at 4Km from your ship getting their shields and armor shot away while they are not even scratching your tank is just wrong.
Of course if a frigate normally has 5 high slots why do they only shoot a rocket missile every few seconds? Make that more realistic, maybe not in the level 1's but certainly in the higher level missions ships should have a loadout that makes sense for their ship size. This again implies less NPC's in the missions which can only add to the reality of a mission.
One other thing is that you might want to give someone that has done the same mission 50 times a higher dps from the NPC's if you can run the same mission over and over again then you clearly can handle it with relative ease. So after each storyline mission make the missions a little harder till you reach a maximum for each mission level type, maybe even have a agent advise the player to talk to a higher level agent once the max difficulty is reached.

In short, less is more, better NPC's is more fun. Give NPC's a more realistic loadout and let them make use of things like logistics and drones (with less NPC's in a mission this should be mroe possible)
It might be a good idea to make some agents roam around, and make more agents, in general. The simple idea being that this will break up mission running hubs making the players have to move or use a different agent. People will scream about this but it might be a nice idea to add a type of roaming agent with the WiS implementation, or in a itteration there of.
You could add high quality agents offering missions that might even cause a standing drop against the faction it is being done for but gives a good pay out and adds some variaty to the game.

Offer missions based on skills, does a player have cloaking skill? Then offer them a mission that requires a cloak... or a MWD skill ofer them a mission where they need to catch up with a prey that moves away fast. Give a player a mission where they are required to clear a few wandering roids if they have a high enough mining skill (bigger roids if they can fly exhumers of course).

But all in all make missions more fun then just sit F1..F8 and wait. I could just as easily play WoW if I wanted to do something like that.

Ralitge boyter
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.01.20 13:43:00 - [466]
 

A target switching AI finally, will make doing level 5's with an alt a little more difficult Twisted Evil though a level 3 and 4 which I normally do alone anyway will not be affected Neutral

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.01.20 13:52:00 - [467]
 

Oh man, i'll so f5 the forums when those npc hit tq. Twisted Evil

Captain Politics
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.20 14:08:00 - [468]
 

Does this mean that the NPC's in the wormholes will target drones as well ?

This could potentially be a stealth nerf of gallente pilots from doing the wormholes. Ogre II is too costly to just throw away. Or have you figured a way around this ?

Roy Batty68
Caldari
Immortal Dead
Posted - 2009.01.20 14:11:00 - [469]
 

Originally by: CCP Incognito
Wormhole NPC

Hmm...

- What faction will they be? A new one?

- Will they have bounties? Seems a bit off if it is undiscovered space. Why would CONCORD care about cleaning up space it doesn't even know of?

- On the other hand, it's not all going to be rogue drones, is it? ugh


But then I suppose the Guristas or Angels could just be better explorers than us pod pilots and they are just sitting there looking at their watches. "Took you long enough. I've been sat here for ages!"
Laughing


CCP Incognito

Posted - 2009.01.20 14:24:00 - [470]
 

Originally by: Captain Politics
Does this mean that the NPC's in the wormholes will target drones as well ?

This could potentially be a stealth nerf of gallente pilots from doing the wormholes. Ogre II is too costly to just throw away. Or have you figured a way around this ?


We are aware of this possibility. We haven't decided what to do with drones, currently (this second, could change in the next) the drones are on the list of targets. but individually they don't do enough DPS to be a bigger threat than a ship with guns.

We see a couple possibility that could be done, I would be intrested if others had ideas also.

A) drones are there own targets, it would be up to the mother ship (the ship that launched the drones, not the capital ship) to do more threat than the drones. This would rule out a domi with nos and lots of drones as a viable setup. But on the other hand a domi with lots of remote repairers and drones could be viable.

B) Drones do threat on behalf of there owner. If the owner gets to be primary target then the NPC could pick from any target in the group of the ship and it's drones.

C) All of a players Drones are grouped into one lump for the purposes of threat. If the drone group gets enough threat then the NPC would start killing the drone group.

D) Don't have one at the moment, have a suggestion.

BiggestT
Caldari
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2009.01.20 14:34:00 - [471]
 

Edited by: BiggestT on 20/01/2009 14:35:11
This is a post on page 16 so it will probably be ignored.

I'd like to see npc recruiting.
E.G A nsty bunch of sansha's show up and put a base in isinokka, rather than whinging to the player about it, they (being the npc corps in the area) should help the player help them so its like a proper battle (ie provide a few npc bs, cruisers etc to fight alongside us).

This could make it more absorbing as npc's wldnt need to be so weak so that one player cld own them all. One would actually require a decent "npc gang" to do the harder missions.


Thebro Nobrunder
Schrodinger's Renegades
Posted - 2009.01.20 14:56:00 - [472]
 

I love my domi, and this would definitely be a pain in the but... but...

I think the drones should be considered a single group. If the group of drones becomes primary then the npc's should target the drones.

Now hopefully we won't be talking about the old 40 v 1 battles like missions, because then the domi pilot can use remote reps, ecm, sensor damps, tracking disruptors, etc to protect their drones.

You should not be afraid to make npc's do something which would be rational for a pc to do.

Noveron
Caldari
Aitnaru
Posted - 2009.01.20 15:12:00 - [473]
 

to CCP Incognito

I'd love if any of you guys take any of my ideas into consideration, maybe Im asking too much but..

Thank you in advance anyways.

PR0JECT 2501
Section Nine
Posted - 2009.01.20 15:19:00 - [474]
 

Edited by: PR0JECT 2501 on 20/01/2009 15:59:30
My 2 cents on ways fightin npc's could be more challenging and fun...

1.) NPC ship types mix made more random, assign points values to each type, and then have them randomly chosen out of points value assigned to each npc swarm. this could be made a little less chaotic with small groups 3-4 ships designed to compliment each other. this is so missions aren't the same script each time.

1b.) t2 types of npc ship and associated tactics would be fantastic, now t2 mods have dropped to near build cost wouldn't be too much of a gold mine. stuff like logistics ships, recon, stealth bomber, commandships etc. even stuff like covert ops could work (you get to see it for a few secs before it cloaks and calls in re-enforcements etc)

2.) make npc ship fittings less ridiculous, e.g wtf are combat ships doin with 2 types of tank and miner 1's etc

3.) have the groups of npc ships in missions have a lead ship, not just one that spawns re-enforcements when popped, but it's presense allows actual tactics, e.g spider tanking etc to be done by that group until it is destroyed. other common tactics could be the npc's reacting to the type of dmg being done most to them (e.g if guns, they try and out run the trackin, missiles, they use fof or smartbombs)

4.) give npc ships a 'last ditch effort' reaction when almost destroyed, e.g try to escape, or ram into your ship and explode. this could be made much more varried and interesting for the lead ships mentioned in idea above, like trying to call for re-enforcements, directing whole group to 'banzai' attack, or attack harder for few volleys.

5.) when current amount of npc in the mission gets to a low point deemed totally impossible for it to defeat the player (e.g those last pesky few frigs u could passive tank all day) again, make this spark a 'last effort' fight or flight tactic

6.) name the leaders of npc ship groups mentioned above, and have the ships in their group bear a sig to match. e.g "Commander John Smith [24th wing]" and the ships in its command would be "[24th wing] Fighter". this would make it seem a liitle less robotic than a list of ships named mostly by class & faction, and u could easily tell what the groups where. could even use colors other than red, or with shared backgrounds for each group?

7.) individual bounties could be lowered, and mission rewards/bonus could be altered depending on how well the ships are destroyed, rather than the simple double isk time reward if you do that lvl1 in half a day. e.g the more tactics the npc ships have time to / are allowed to use the less isk you get? (might need more 'protecting innocent civilians' storyline elements put into mission descript to justify) e.g "agent - the jobs done, but your cowboy tactics put lives at risk, be grateful your even getting paid" or "agent - fantastic job, they didn't know what hit them ,here's a little something extra as a bonus". at the moment you get a couple of mil for actually doin a lvl4, and about 10 times that off bounty.

8.) FRIENDLY npc fleets in lvl 1-4 missions. you could have to help them engage dif parts of enemy fleet, and get bonuses depending on how many friendlies survive etc. perhaps even get the chance to give them very basic orders, e.g 'hold ground' or 'attack' be good taste of FC for noobs

9.) change alot of the background structures to actually make a dif to how the npc's fight. e.g all those 'silo's' could make npc's ammo finite once destroyed, 'war-installations' etc could act as group commanders in terms of adding tactics like mentioned in point 3. 'slave-pens' could make some npc's run away and quit the fight or change sides if destroyed. they should prob drop more loot than currently do tho.

10.) aggro mechanics need to be seriuosly improved, in many missions you can blast apart 1 group of npc's without others caring

so CCP Incognito, any of this seem possible or good idea?

Maria Kalista
Amarr
Knights of Kador
Posted - 2009.01.20 15:46:00 - [475]
 

How about making the targeting of the drones chance based on top of the thread level they might become?

And losing drones is always a possibility. The moment you launch them you risk losing them.



CCP Incognito

Posted - 2009.01.20 17:01:00 - [476]
 

Originally by: Noveron
to CCP Incognito
I'd love if any of you guys take any of my ideas into consideration, maybe Im asking too much but..
Thank you in advance anyways.


Yep read your posts, I am reading all the posts.

I can not make any promises about what we will do. But all ideas are going into the mixing bowl.

Keep the ideas coming the more the better.


Thebro Nobrunder
Schrodinger's Renegades
Posted - 2009.01.20 17:39:00 - [477]
 

One thing I really hope to see is smaller groups of stronger npc's.
A smaller number of npc who are fit to complement each other would be very challenging and much less aggravating them the npc spam which is many missions.

Also I would love to see missions where bringing friends makes sense.
Currently a group doing level 4's or even level 5 missions doesn't really make sense, and if you do bring a group then you have one uber tanked ship and a bunch of gank ships.

Grendelsbane
Posted - 2009.01.20 17:50:00 - [478]
 

I would LOVE to see more advanced NPC behavior. The problem, though, is that then you can't have missions with vast numbers of rats.

Mission-*****s want to spend all day warping in with their faction fit, officer-tanked Navy lolship, turning on their modules, and slaying vast hordes of NPC battleships crewed by a combination of ******s, hamsters, and potted plants. This makes them feel l337, and CCP knows it and thus delivers.

Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
Posted - 2009.01.20 18:33:00 - [479]
 

Originally by: CCP Incognito
* We are planning a across the board change in how NPC use EW. Currently a NPC has a chance to use EW and if it does you are scrambled. The plan is to make NPC EW like player EW so if you are loaded up with ECCM you can resist the NPC EW. This is the plan, yet to be executed so no guarantees.
While your looking at this, it would also be nice if you took a look at the other forms of NPC e-war. Webs are of particular note as NPC's were not affected by the massive changes in QR. Also NPC e-war appears (last time I tested) to be immune to stacking penalties.

I like the general theme that you are going on: make PvE more like PvP. I would much rather fight one or two NPC's with player like attributes than the dozens gnat's that we currently face.

Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
Posted - 2009.01.20 18:47:00 - [480]
 

Edited by: Ki Tarra on 20/01/2009 18:48:03
Originally by: CCP Incognito
D) Don't have one at the moment, have a suggestion.
Don't forget to bias the decision based on the attributes of the ship.

It would be stupid for a Battleship NPC to engage the player directly, then switch to his drones after they are in range and have delt enough damage to draw agro: the battleship would have no chance of tracking the drones, better to try and kill the player. However, a Frigate NPC should see the opportunity for survival in first killing the drones, instead of the player.

Balancing should be done with more of a PvP attitude than the traditional PvP: ie a solo battleship should not be expected to take out ??? x Frigates, ??? Cruisers & ??? Battleships like that routinely do in current missions. Encounters would be balanced more along the lines of a solo battleship against another battleship, a couple of frigates, and maybe a supporting cruiser, and even then it should be a struggle, where bring a friend is advisable.

As much as practical it should go back to what would a player do if he were filling the role of the NPC? If balancing was done using a reasonable PvP mentality, the question of the viablity of drones in PvE is the same as in PvP.


Pages: first : previous : ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 ... : last (21)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only