Upcoming Changes to Drone Aggression

[SleepLacker]

@Na_av

Define an active player.

People already worte it multiple times, but I’ll try to write the clear definition down for you.

• Active Drone Player

Targets enemies, and sends drones to attack by issuing a command for each enemy.

Very likely to be using drones in passive mode to avoid unecessary aggro or premature trigger kills.

• Half-active Drone Player

Targets and deals with enemies using other weapon systems, while letting drones deal with random stuff for better clear times, without having to actively target them.

Might recall their drones if they notice they are targetting something tanky, and damage isn’t being applied properly.

• Barely Active Drone Player

Targets a single enemy, simply to get aggro, and lets drones attack enemies relying on them attacking first.

Only ever interacts in case an enemy didn’t aggro properly, or the aggro chain got broken.

• Innactive Drone Player

Does nothing, simply relying on enemies attacking first for their drones to work.

@Na_av

CCP has not given us their definition of what specifically “low or no attention gameplay” is, we can only assume what they mean.

• Low attention gameplay

Doing something else while at your PC, and just glancing at the game client every so often to check if everything is alright/going as planned.

• No attention gameplay

Being literally away from the keyboard while their character does stuff in-game, or being completely tabbed out of the game, not being aware of what is happening in the client.

@Na_av

There are many ways to play EVE, so the definition of an active player should be one that encompasses all forms of gameplay.

They made a change regarding active gameplay with drones.

There’s no need to go overboard with defining what an active player is regarding all forms of gameplay, when the change is about drone aggro.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Na_av

Define an active player.

“A player who is directly making every choice for their actions in the game.”

Launching drones and passively watching the game play itself for you is not active play because you’re allowing the game to make all the choices about which targets they engage, a choice that is often made by players (including players who use drones).

Orbiting a target is active play because you tell the game exactly what you want your ship to do (fly a circle around a target/point) and no further decisions are made.

As far as I’m concerned, if a player is actively at their keyboard and interacting with their client windows, they are an active player.

But the defining point of all of the whining about this change is outrage that you have to interact with the client instead of passively letting the game play itself for you. If you are at the keyboard and interacting with the client then the impact of this change is negligible outside of the perma-jamming scenario (which CCP is willing to look at).

[Na_av]

SleepLacker This change effects more than drone boats. The entire first half of your post is worthless.

@SleepLacker

• Low attention gameplay

Doing something else while at your PC, and just glancing at the game client every so often to check if everything is alright/going as planned.

• No attention gameplay

Being literally away from the keyboard while their character does stuff in-game, or being completely tabbed out of the game, not being aware of what is happening in the client.

As stated previously, this change effects far more than just players who exhibit these behaviors. The opposite of these better defines an ‘active player’ and thus active players are being harmed by this change that is meant to target these behaviors. Making it a bad change.

@Merin_Ryskin

But the defining point of all of the whining about this change is outrage that you have to interact with the client instead of passively letting the game play itself for you

No. The outrage of this change is that it effects more than players who passively let the game play itself. And the arguments for this change are all vindictive in nature towards a specific type of player in a specific part of the game.

@Merin_Ryskin

Orbiting a target is active play because you tell the game exactly what you want your ship to do (fly a circle around a target/point) and no further decisions are made.

Checking aggressive and launching drones is telling the game exactly what you want your ship to do too. Indefinitely shoot targets that shoot me. Just like hitting orbit tells the game you want to indefinitely orbit an object. There’s no difference other than the player benefits from the former because bounties exist.

[aria_Yatolila]

you are ■■■■■■■ clueless they don’t act like human that how I have 350 report bot in my mailbox, I will have even more now

[SleepLacker]

@Na_av

The outrage of this change is that it effects more than players who passively let the game play itself. And the arguments for this change are all vindictive in nature towards a specific type of player in a specific part of the game.

If it’s about the battleship pilots who have longer targetting locks on smaller ships, people have been telling them to keep a proper target queue.

So far their answer has been that they can’t, or don’t want to bother doing that.

If it’s about ECM issues, those have been raised already, and suggestions made.

We only have to see if CCP thinks the suggestion is overpowered, and if it needs more balance.

@Na_av

Indefinitely shoot targets that shoot me. Just like hitting orbit tells the game you want to indefinitely orbit an object.

Wrong analogy.

A proper analogy would be clicking orbit tells your ship to keep orbiting whichever ship has the highest aggro on you indefinitely.

[Na_av]

@SleepLacker

If it’s about the battleship pilots who have longer targetting locks on smaller ships, people have been telling them to keep a proper target queue.

So far their answer has been that they can’t, or don’t want to bother doing that.

Because they shouldn’t have to. This is exactly an affect of the change that is outside the scope of the change’s purpose.

@SleepLacker

Wrong analogy.

It’s not an analogy. It’s a game mechanic.

[SleepLacker]

@Na_av

It’s not an analogy. It’s a game mechanic.

Yes, completely different game mechanics.

You can’t argue that orbiting a single target with a single command is the same as attacking multiple targets with a single command.

Very different things.

Selecting a target to orbit and orbiting it is as active as selecting a target and commanding your drones to attack it.

It stops being active when your drones continue attacking stuff for you without a command.

[Siegfried_Hilanen]

Its funny that you think ccp has the big picture, if they did wouldnt we see more players over the years, instead we see less each year. This change on ratting will just add to the decrease of players imho.

CCP could lookup how many carrier pilots have received bounty ticks for instance before the fighter change and vs now, that would indicate how many players have decided to stick arround from passive to active ratting.

We live in a data driven age, shouldnt CCP make their decisions based upon data? feeling or opinions asside, do we have more carrier players in the game now that before fighter changes? Added to that, feedback from players + CSM alike should only allow the most potent changes to make its way to the forum/devblogs.

[Na_av]

@SleepLacker

It stops being active when your drones continue attacking stuff for you without a command.

At this point you’re just arguing to argue. You have not addressed this change’s issues in the slightest and are nit picking ancillary counter comments in attempt to draw the conversation away from my actual points.

[SleepLacker]

@Na_av

You have not addressed this change’s issues in the slightest and are nit picking ancillary counter comments in attempt to draw the conversation away from my actual points.

And your main point is that players shouldn’t have to adapt to the change simply because they didn’t need to bother about what’s being changed before?

Is that even a point worth defending?

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Na_av

The outrage of this change is that it effects more than players who passively let the game play itself.

It really doesn’t. If you are actively playing the game instead of passively watching it play itself then you are already directing your drones and this changes nothing.

Indefinitely shoot targets that shoot me.

But which targets? When there are multiple targets shooting at you which targets to shoot in which order is a whole bunch of choices, potentially very important choices. The equivalent to orbiting a target is telling your drones to attack a single target, which they will continue to do until it dies. And nothing is changing with that.

[Siegfried_Tahl]

@Mike_Azariah

But given the choice to rewrite all the Cosmos missions or shift the AI of drones . . . which button do you expect anyone to reach for?

I think I can imagine the mess that old PVE is, with every site not being procedurally generated like Trig stuff is, but every npc and structure names, stats and locations put into the main database. And I can imagine why nobody wants to touch it with ten feet pole. There are hundreds of missions, ded sites, anoms, escalations, cosmos, wh sites. Literally several hundred sites need individual attention, months of work with no apparent result.

@Mike_Azariah

Hell, yes I would like to see more interesting and dynamic missions, ones that make you sweat or get the shakes. For me the abyss fulfills that better than any other PvE in Eve because it is not (for me) predictable nor is winning a sure thing.

But some folks want predictable, constant, reliable.

Its not just some though, that’s the thing. According to GDC talk by that ubisoft guy I posted earlier somewhere, players among other stats distribute as normal distribution in how hardcore they are. With 60% playing casually, 30% fully engaged, and only some 10% being hardcore devotees.

You cant make casual soft core PVE harder and expect casual crowd become hardcore, they came for casual experience in the first place. Those who want to up the stakes do incursions and t5-6 abyss already, or whatever.

@Mike_Azariah

Eve has a lot of players and a lot of play styles. This change hit one of the styles but not all of them.

Indeed it has. The change does hit every drone user though.

I fly Phantasm, it can only field 3 light drones, not a drone ship at all. My most intense moment when I rely on drones to shot some frigs is in 5/10 sites second rooms, especially Guristas. I damage and speed tank the room, clearing BCs ASAP while drones deal with frigs and dessies. Its the least AFK moment imaginable for me.

I know, use proper ship, adapt, etc, but the point is even small time drone users get hit. It just adds some more time not even challenge to an already heavy time consuming game.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Siegfried_Hilanen

Its funny that you think ccp has the big picture, if they did wouldnt we see more players over the years, instead we see less each year. This change on ratting will just add to the decrease of players imho.

CCP could lookup how many carrier pilots have received bounty ticks for instance before the fighter change and vs now, that would indicate how many players have decided to stick arround from passive to active ratting.

We live in a data driven age, shouldnt CCP make their decisions based upon data? feeling or opinions asside, do we have more carrier players in the game now that before fighter changes? Added to that, feedback from players + CSM alike should only allow the most potent changes to make its way to the forum/devblogs

It’s adorable that you typed all this nonsense with that tone, as if it were a “gotcha” that you just pulled on CCP. They do indeed collect that information, and has even shown it to players.

EVE Vegas 2019 - Data & Botting

[Scoots_Choco]

@Siegfried_Tahl

I fly Phantasm, it can only field 3 light drones, not a drone ship at all. My most intense moment when I rely on drones to shot some frigs is in 5/10 sites second rooms, especially Guristas. I damage and speed tank the room, clearing BCs ASAP while drones deal with frigs and dessies.

You can easily solve this by simply burning away in a straight line and forcing Frigates and Destroyers chase you.

I don’t know what your Phantasm fit is, but given that it’s an unbonsed ship for Drone damage, if you’re really “relying” on 3 Light Drones, it’s an insignificant amount of applied DPS that you can easily make up with manual piloting.

Not to mention, as a Cruiser, you should have zero problems locking and assigning drones to target Frigates or Destroyers.

If your current strategy (as claimed) is sufficient, then you should have no problem leaving Frigates and Destroyers for last while you deal with the rest of the NPC rats in the DED site.

Edit: furthermore, i highly doubt that CCP will take your specific (claimed) story and decide that it weighs heavily enough to counteract the prolific afk krabbing in nullsec that would be stopped by this change. Compared to your 5/10 DED site running, nullsec farming results in excessively more bloat to the game’s economy. The additional 20 seconds it takes for you to lock a frigate rat and assign Drones to engage it is a worthwhile tradeoff for how much afk krabbing this change will stop.

tl:dr; It’s not the end of the world, you’ll get over it.

[Na_av]

@Scoots_Choco

You can easily solve this by simply burning away in a straight line and forcing Frigates and Destroyers chase you.

I don’t know what your Phantasm fit is, but given that it’s an unbonsed ship for Drone damage, if you’re really “relying” on 3 Light Drones, it’s an insignificant amount of applied DPS that you can easily make up with manual piloting.

Not to mention, as a Cruiser, you should have zero problems locking and assigning drones to target Frigates or Destroyers.

If your current strategy (as claimed) is sufficient, then you should have no problem leaving Frigates and Destroyers for last while you deal with the rest of the NPC rats in the DED site.

But does this change effect his game play? Yes it does. Regardless of the dps value of his drones, or the fit of his phantasm, he is affected by this change that is supposedly targeting low/no attention players. Everything else is ancillary to the actual argument.

[Merin_Ryskin]

@Na_av

But does this change effect his game play?

Only in an incredibly minor way, which he should be doing anyway.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Na_av

But does this change effect his game play? Yes it does

Wow, change changes things. What a crazy thought!

[Na_av]

@Merin_Ryskin

which he should be doing anyway.

You don’t have the right to determine how he should and should not play.

@Merin_Ryskin

Only in an incredibly minor way

It’s not minor if a tool you use is essentially being taken away. It’s similar in effect to telling smart bomb ships that they have to target everything they want to hit with the smart bomb. It’s not a minor change to the mechanic of that system.

@Scoots_Choco

Wow, change changes things. What a crazy thought!

This comment adds no value to the conversation. If you have nothing to add go find another thread to troll.

[Scoots_Choco]

@Na_av

You don’t have the right to determine how he should and should not play.

None of us do.
But CCP does.
And since CCP is making this change, your argument holds no water.

@Na_av

It’s not minor if a tool you use is essentially being taken away.

It’s not “essentially being taken away” though. If you think it is, then you are seriously misunderstanding what’s going on.

Drones launched will automatically aggress the targets that the player is targeting. So if he is in fact targetting the Battlecruisers, his drones will also target those too. This means he is able to kill the Battlecruisers (slightly) faster than he normally would be able to. Overall, this would have negligible impact on his ability to clear 5/10 DED sites.

@Na_av

It’s similar in effect to telling smart bomb ships that they have to target everything they want to hit with the smart bomb.

lmao, no it’s not.

Edit: I do have to say I am impressed at how offended you are for someone else’s negligible changes. I’ve been saying this for the past couple of years, but I hope that at some point, people stop getting offended for other people so easily. I know it’s so tempting to be outraged at things that don’t matter to you at all, but do try to keep perspective on how little this actually changes your gameplay.

[SleepLacker]

@Na_av

It’s not minor if a tool you use is essentially being taken away.

Drones aren’t being taken away.

The ability to use drones passively is what’s being reworked.

If drones were taken away from all ships that don’t have drone bonuses, then that would be a major gameplay change.