is the fit ■■■■, or is it that the NPCs are cheating?
A perfectly viable pvp fit is rendered useless just because NPCs cheat? thats ■■■■■■■ dogsht. 100% offence intended to CCP developers.
NPC´s cant cheat per definition !
if its useless then not because you think an NPC is cheating ! NPC´s cant cheat per definition !
if your fit is useless then because its build against other players and not against NPC´s !
and again … if you need a NOS then youre doing it wrong and you need to rework your fit !
in all of my HS fits for any kind of missions i never neded any NOS ! still in burner missions i dont need a NOS !
and now tell us all why you think that NPC´s are cheating !
I think i said already, what happens if you use a NOS against an NPC.
Required or not, i dont care, if the enemy ships has zero requirement for cap then it is cheating.
If you encountered an enemy ship sith shield boosters, that had zero cap requirement for 3 shield boosters youd be ■■■■■■■ annoyed right?!
no you only said its cheating ! you dont said why its cheating !
and i think you need to read at first the definition of cheating … an NPC cant cheat because the NPC has developed and gor programmed exactly THIS way ! this is in fact not a cheat its game design ! we now can discuss if its “good” game desing or not but we all can see that its in fact NO CHEATING !
and my sugesstion is → no NPC should be able to get NOS because they have endless cap !
if you encounter an enemy ship and youre losing because your fit wasnt good against your enemy then yes, it can be annoying but who did the mistake ? it was YOU !
and its still different in PvP then in PvE !
PvP is unpredictable !
PvE is predictable !
so if you wantto PvE then you can specific fit against your enemy ! if its a blood raider which neuts you then fit more cap and cap neut resistance ! fly a ship wich dont need to use cap for its guns to safe cap !
and if you now fit perfectly against your PvE enemy and you still run out of cap then its because you need to think about your playstyle !
and now you can see its not a game problem you have ! its a you problem !
No, I don’t say that. You can read what I said when you actually read my post. There are some older NPCs that were programmed without actually having “capacitor” and they are still in the game. From these the NOS can’t leech simply because you cannot drain cap from a ship that has 0 cap. I doubt that CCP will begin to overhaul all NPCs in the game to bring them on an up-to-date standard, so you just have to learn which NPCs you can NOS and which you can’t. And then they are 100% predictable. Or, simply don’t use NOS in PvE because they suck anyway (haha, wordplay…).
It requires specialized information to beat all high-tier content in the game, because NPC ships always behave differently than capsuleer ships. This goes for Burners like for T5/6 Abyss, C5/6 WH sites or Incursions. They are not capsuleers and they have sometimes developed different technologies than the empires, mostly it is weaker than what capsuleers can use, but in certain cases it’s stronger. You simply can’t compare an NPC ship to a capsuleer ship, even if they use the same hull.
Thats totally on you. If you only want to make the investment in one mission hub, you can only run burners in one mission hub. Simple as that.
1 Like
As a mission runner, I wouldn’t mind having the option of multiple mission options based on standing, ie: 7.0-8.9 standing = +1, 9.0+ standing = +2 choices.
1 Like
An energy nosferatu only “works” on targets that have more capacitor then the nosferatu user. If your target has it’s shield boosters failing due to low capacitor, nos-ing it will drain no capacitor from it, nor will you receive any capacitor, either, but you will have to use up your own capacitor for the nos activation, i.e. you end up neuting yourself if you attempt to NOS a target that has no capacitor.
Tripple shield boosters isn’t a common way to tank. People use oversized shield boosters with shield boost amplifiers to make the boost even larger and cap batteries for stability and nos/neut resisance if they have 3 spare mids, and if the capacitor provides for it, operational solidifier rigs for faster boost cycles.
The design goals for missions are to have the content be soloable, beginner to mid-tier, but also scalable so they can be done with other players, thus potentially on boarding players into more difficult or social content. As such, their potential reward output should be relatively low.
What is likely to happen when missions get reworked, is we’ll get a mission board similar to the opportunities window (it might even be listed in that same window.)
Each mission that appears on the board will have a time to expire, before it goes away and a new group of missions is offered from that agent. When you click on the offered mission, it will give you a run down of the mission (similar to what is currently offered.)
It would also be good if CCP really pushed into the procedural generation of missions, so we don’t have the constant repetition that exists now. This can be done my assembling pieces of content, and then assembling them together to form the whole.
Mission Level and Type : This is your general mission types determined by agents: standard combat, burner, distribution, mining, ect.
filter options when looking at the job board:
An option to modify the mission difficulty by number of players.
Does the mission send the player into dangerous space? (Lowsec from a highsec agent.)
Faction: Anti pirate. Anti drone. Anti empire. Anti Trig. Anti drifter. Anti Edencom.
below are randomized options selected by the procedural mission generator
Generic Mission Objective: Item retrieval, vip escort (may require remote repair,) vip capture (kill and loot named npc,) tackle missions, pure combat, hacking, ect.
Optional Objectives: Are there any? These would give rewards for full clearing missions sites, hacking containers, rescuing friendly / neutral npcs from pirates, tackling vips, ect.
This is where generic mission text would be located (modified by the other randomized options) and then given to the player to explain the objective of the task.
Location: where is the mission site physically located? deep space? near a planet or moon? on the celestial’s surface or in it’s atmosphere? Near a station? Is the mission location a static poi or an instanced dungeon?
Site Dressing: What does the instanced dungeon site look like? are there stations? mission buildings? neutral npcs? Are there any named npcs tied to your account in the mission? (This is to make the missions feel tied together into a semblance of a story arch.)
Combat: What level appropriate enemy npcs are in the mission? Are there friendly npcs that will help with the task? Is there an option to hire npcs for the mission? (For example if you have a hauling mission and want an escort to protect you from enemy npcs or an escort mission and you want to dps but want rr support.)
Escalation: After the asked for task is complete, will the mission escalate to a higher stage? This might automatically trigger if the player has a partial completion. Ie: Secured objective item , but option objective vip got away. The mission might then decide to give you an option to track the npc down.
Anyway, I could talk more about this, but I think you get the idea. If each of those options has 50 variations, you’ll get a mission system that doesn’t feel like repetition. And mission assets can be assembled in a similar way (larger procedural objects assembled from hand crafted objects,) so site assets have a large variety.
Good idea!
Because in current state, it’s useless to have high faction standing (unless you are trading), because you will lose standing with AGENT much faster anyway! (after it crosses -2.0 you will lost access to all missions except L1).
As an alternative, higher FACTION standing could modify STANDING LOSS with certain ROBUSTNESS parameter = the higher the faction stand, the weaker the standing loss.
Sounds great the “procedural generation” part.
Originally, I was thinking about it for WAR THUNDER game, where you could eliminate so called “camping spots” (=cancer!) when giving out newly generated map every time haha!
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.