Anomic Missions STEALTH Buffed without any warning!

(Muffinmixer) #64

I think there are better ways to implement progressive content than to buff NPCs without telling anyone so they present a new unforseen challenge, especially in a game where death has actual consequences beyond respawning in a nearby graveyard.

Also, a straight HP buff to NPCs is not exactly impossible to work solo builds around. It took someone in our group less than 2 hours to come up with a workaround solo setup for killing the Serpentis Agent that is basically better in every single way compared to the old setup, and our solo fits for the other agents are robust enough that they still clear their respective agents just fine, if a tiny bit slower.

Edit: Oh yeah, and for the inherent risk involved in these missions, I think the reward is well justified personally. I still lose ships to these missions on a weekly basis due to my own mistakes. And I work in null-sec, you wouldn’t believe this but I easily lose more ships to the rats than to campers/roaming gangs out there, it’s just a testament to how deadly and unforgiving these rats already are.

(SiRSp0T AloT) #65

Your post is so off-topic, so much stupid things in it, u sir, totally missed the topic. Plz troll somewhere else :slight_smile:

Just to mention a few things to help your brain to work again:
Of course their game, but they wan’t others to pay and play, with your attitude players must be happy to be allowed to play the game and also paying for it;
They ALREADY replied that it’s not a ninja nerf/buff, but u’re still here to tell us it’s great that they finally did sth. to it - maybe u need 1-2 days to get it, dunno;
No1 said sth. about needed friends, topic was more about maybe they wanna force ppl to have multiple accounts to be able to do it;
If u wanna entertain ppl with missions, u bring new stuff, not nerfs/buffs - your comment about that is so stupid, it’s not even funny. Since when is nerfing considered entertainment?!
If u think they dont need to inform their playerbase about changes, think again - no patch notes, no info on reworked ships or new stuff, or stuff that can make u lose bilions of isk, I guess u would enjoy that, right?

Now sit down and try again plz ^^

(SiRSp0T AloT) #66

He did not have enough concentration to focus on the most important things in this post. 1. I tried to warn others of the changes, 2. I mentioned, that it would be rly usefull to be informed by this changes, u will probably lose a lot of time investment / IGM, cause it’s not like in others games (and instead of him u got that point).

(thehog) #67

So after reading this entire thread and the CCP updates I am still confused as to what the current status of burner missions is. The vast majority of burner agents were obviously buffed and according to CCP these buffs were not intended. Okay, but is CCP going to revert these changes, and is there any sort of rough estimate as to when these changes are going to be reverted? I am not super excited about the idea of spending hours on the test server trying out new fits just to find the changes reverted the next day, but I am also not excited by the idea of going without my primary income source for months on end.

Can we have more transparency on this topic, instead of the sort of cryptic responses we have received thus far?

(SiRSp0T AloT) #68

It’s kind of unprofessional, I agree :frowning: from a player perspective, it really looks like they don’t really care.

(Nana Skalski) #69

Lol, so the available interpretations are:

  1. We dont know what happened, dont know if its even reversible at this time.
  2. We screwed up, not really sorry. :poop: happens all the time here.
  3. UFO’s came and corrupted our game code.
  4. We left a test donut on a keyboard of a running game for a week, until game was thoroughly tested.

(Corraidhin Farsaidh) #70

Corrected that for you. And yes ,a supplier did once claim a recent sunspot had caused an issue on one of the servers I was supporting…

(Donnachadh) #71

Because you lose ships to your own mistakes is not a valid reason for the higher payouts.
However if that is the path you want to follow then logic dictates that CCP needs to increase the payouts in ALL levels of PvE content because people lose ships due to their own mistakes, hell I even see new players losing ships in level 1 missions because they make mistakes.

The nanny filters and the ISD will not allow me to post my true thoughts in response to this so I leave it to your imagination.

I will state that next time you could simply accept that they are a personal opinion and accept that ALL of us are allowed to post our opinions to your ideas and let them stand without the thinly veiled personal attacks.

Myself and many of the others here noticed the change, we adjusted to that change and we are again able to solo these sites. You come here and complain about the change and demand that CCP changes back to what we had before and then have the nerve to tell me that I need to get my brain working. One has to wonder who really needs to engage brain cells those of us that figured it out or those who come here and complain about it and whine about how it needs to be changed back.

Ah the usual doom and gloom end of EvE type of post.
Not sure how to break this news to you so I will just be blunt.
The select few whiny butt carebears like you that MAY quit over a change like this intended or not are insignificant compared to the many other problems where CCP faces the possibility of losing players.

Seems to me these are the ultimate ninja nerfs, in fact they are so ninja that even CCP did not know about them. But then I simply do not care, intended or not I found them to be a welcome and refreshing change to the game and I for one hope they DO NOT change them back. Not only that but I hope CCP finds the valuable lesson in this and starts throwing these little undocumented curve balls at us from time to time because I find them interesting and they add some spice to an otherwise dull and boring aspect of EvE.

And so it goes with people like you. On the one hand you tell others that EvE is about having friends and cooperation is key to success. And then the need for “friends” affects something YOU WANT TO DO and all of a sudden it is a bad thing. Setting that aside no one is FORCING you to have multiple accounts, you can simply choose to remove these missions from your rotation and continue to play solo and on one account.

Ah the typical ALL OR NOTHING mind set.
Patch notes as a general rule are a really good thing especially those that discuss changes to ships and modules. On the other hand a change to PvE content that is not documented can be a very good thing as this one proves. Intended or not the last time a PvE activity required me to use any brain cells at all was way back when we were trying to figure the best way to run the burners after they were first released so I found this to be refreshing and interesting and the fact that it blindsided me only makes it that much more interesting.

(Donnachadh) #72

Ah the typical he did not respond the way I wanted so he did not read, does not care attitude. So comforting to see that some things in this game NEVER change.

YOU posted this and in doing so YOU warned people of it’s existence, why should I waste my time and energy repeating that warning? Even if I had repeated that warning would it have made any real difference?

To the notification of changes well we already covered that in my last post but to recap, CCP needs to throw undocumented changes at us from time to time, and intended or not this one is a perfect example of what I mean. Nothing in this unintended change was a significant threat to the game as a whole and yet it did at least for a short time make things significantly more interesting.

As long as this character has been in the game and you can make this statement.
CCP has not been known as a great communicator, and in a situation like this where the change was not intended what are they supposed to say?

Since CCP claims this was unintended they have to go back through the code and determine what intended change or changes caused this and then they have to figure out how to remove the unintended aspect of those changes without reverting those changes that were intended. I will not claim to know how long this will take however based on experiences with similar circumstances on code I am familiar with we could be waiting days, weeks or perhaps even a month or more.

(SiRSp0T AloT) #73

U, my little fellow, need some serious help xD in fact u almost made my day with YOUR whiny repost, it’s so good, thx for that.

U finally got it that they replied, good, I cannot tell u right now how proud I am of u (so u really needed that 2 days, heh xD). I said sth. about the ultimate need of friends and cooperation? Can u show me that part, found it nowhere. So if u start imagine things, ppl said (or wrote in that case) to u, u should start thinking about professional mental help, I really care about you, my crazy friend.

And if u on yourself find a nerf entertaining and even treat it as content (really sad story bro), maybe get some other mmog’s to see what “content” really means - just for the sake of comparison of course! Don’t wanna get u overwhelmed with that amount of content u normally never experience, thou.

Oh, and I already made changes, so I do not lose ships anymore, really just the two on the first day after that “bug” - NOW we know it’s probably considered a bug, even by CCP, right? U agree on that, or do u have another awesome opinion on where the sun rises. xD
Originally, I just wanted to give my experience about the surprising change to others (psst, that was some hint about the topic, just wann help, cause I know u still trying hard to find it).

Again, sit down and try again (sth. u here a lot?!). Maybe u can figure out what the topic was till 2018, so we can talk again, till than try some other threads, maybe ppl really need u there (MAYBE, don’t expect to much).

(Aeris Eressea) #74

Youhou ccp, where are you ? One week and no warning note about this. Not fair ccp.

(Muffinmixer) #75

My logic was that risk should commensurate to the reward. People run burners in 200-500 mil ships, and people run L1 missions in free rookie ships or very cheap T1 frigates. The disparity in reward between those two things makes sense given the risks involved.

You’re the only one making stupid suggestions here. Don’t put that on anyone else.

(guigui lechat) #76

I rather say stupid aggression.

(Linus Gorp) #77

The Jovians wiped out an entire Amarr armada with a single battleship…

(Donnachadh) #78

Are comments such as these helpful or contribute to the to the discussion in any way?
In fact reading the entire post these came out of one has to wonder if your are capable of a respectful, intelligent, adult level discussion with someone who disagrees with you.

I do play other games both online and not, and all of them are predictable and boring. See they all have the same idiotic habit of telling you everything they are going to change, exactly how they are going to change it and they even tell you when those changes are going to take effect all of which adds to the dull, boring and repetitive nature of these games. Yes, I agree with you there are some things like changes to our ships and the modules, rigs and sub systems we fit to them that they need to inform us of BEFORE they are implemented in game. On the other hand there are some things where undocumented changes and the surprise and challenges they present add to the enjoyment of the game. The situation under discussion here is a perfect example of how these undocumented changes add an element of unpredictability and enjoyment to the game. Yes you have told me this was not intended, but that does not in any way diminish it’s value to illustrate my points that undocumented changes can add some challenges and interest to our PvE activities.

You commented about the loss of ships and admitted those losses were a direct result of errors you made, my comment was and still is simply that your errors is not justification for additional payouts.

Further you implied that the payouts to burner missions should be higher because the additional difficulty increases the risk of ship loss due to errors on the part of the player. Given that the transition from level 4 missions to burners is in a relative sense about the same as the increased difficulty faced by new players as they transition from level 1 to level 2, or level 2 to level 3 or level 3 to level 4 missions it is only logical that we should increase the payouts for those missions because the increased difficulty increases the risk of ship loss. And this leads us to where you are confused, I NEVER stated that the payouts for those lower level missions should be the same as one receives for running a burner mission. I simply stated that if we increase the payouts in burner missions because difficulty then we need to increase (again please take note I said INCREASE not make them the same as) the payouts at all mission levels because of the increased difficulty faced especially for those as they transition from one level to the next.

(Zarek Kree) #79

This is a common refrain in regard to burners, but if you plug the burner ships into PYFA and then assume max skills and high level implants, you can achieve the DPS and tank that most of those ships have. The exception seems to be cap. They have magic cap - but so do all of the NPCs.

Obviously that doesn’t apply to this buff. But I haven’t seen any actual numbers to run in PYFA yet. The point remains that with the exception of effectively unlimited cap, the burners aren’t quite as magical as many suggest.

(Muffinmixer) #80

Nope, I added the fact that I lose ships regularly to the missions simply to reinforce my initial point, which you cut out of your quote to alienate my context by the way, which was that Burners were a high-risk activity. You’re just laser-focused on that one tiny thing because you’re trying to win an e-argument.

(guigui lechat) #81

Actually, the rat use a different model than the capsuleers :

  • they do not use cap nor can lose cap ;
  • they target at infinite range ;
  • they have a fixed delay to lock.

Those three mesures reduce the compute required to manage them on the server side. They are optimisations which allow the server to run many pockets on a system at the same time without tidi.

Basically damp is useless, and neut only reduces the rate at which they activate their modules. Theorically you can make a burner lose the point by neuting/nos him

(Zarek Kree) #82

I certainly don’t disagree with you, but I do think the relationship NPCs have with cap is one of those mechanics that still isn’t well understood by the community. The seeming incompatibility of your two statements above is indicative of exactly that. There’s a lot of speculation and anecdotal evidence regarding NPC cap usage, but very little in the way of confirmed mechanics with any predictive value.

I simply assume that NPC cap is unlimited and that cap warfare against them is useless. I don’t think either statement is TECHNICALLY true (as evidenced by any number of counter examples), but it seems to be true enough from a practical planning perspective.

(Zarek Kree) #83

Can confirm that the Cyclone no longer works against Angel Base. I haven’t had a significant problem with any of the other Agent, Team or Base burners using cap stable fits. Stick to HACs for Angel Base though. I don’t think there are any smart bombing configurations that’ll work right now.