i agree this is the dumbest thing they have done yet i am an active pilot i use missle boats and drone boats but now looks like i’ll be selling my drone boats and replacing them with turret and missles
Change bounties/loot. - Adjusting the income away from passive, adjusts the problem.
Change respawn rates. (I said high respawn locations, not high security locations btw - I think you might have misread that). - Adjusting the income away from passive, adjusts the problem.
Maybe ratting should require manually moving around often because of adjusted respawn vs. locations. Maybe anomalies should be expanded with some additional new types throughout Null, Low etc.
Replace the prevalence of AFK-able content with active content that solves the actual problem.
1 new type of anoms could be SoE research stations that spawn as anoms, have waves of rats that target the structure first and overwhelm them, and you only get a bounty payout and loot canister if you save the structure from all waves.
If the problem is afk ratting in high respawn locations, target that specifically, not an entire weapons platform.
What is so awful about a new player going mining, choosing to have combat not mining drones out, and his drones save him from rats? It’s a cool experience in a very unforgiving game that might make him stick with it. What’s bad about an EVE pilot who has added a new family member going afk right away because the kid, puppy, whatever needs them right now, not after docking? There’s nothing wrong with drones defending those ships somewhat from basic NPC’s - the pilot is not exploiting any benefit, just risks from sitting in space but it’s makes the game more accommodating to a wider number of players. Part of EVE’s USP is that it isn’t always: ‘get gud’, put your kid up for adoption, it’s 100% attention all the time or nothing.
Also bear in mind there are passive income streams all over EVE - Planetary Interaction, Manufacturing, Research, Invention, the Marketplace, and so on - if 1 is getting out of hand, address that one specifically.
Mia culpa, misread that, apologies.
How do both of these also not affect gun-users and missile users?
Well as far as I was aware, its only Null and less trodden WHs that allowed you to stay in one place, and theres already a mechanic handling that for Null atm, or at least certainly has mechanics connected to it.
It does, but then that requires agreeing on the solution, then implementing it, a process a lot more involved and I would hazard a guess harder to reverse than this.
To get back on this, now Im clearer what you said, what if it isnt? The OP makes no mention of respawn rates, so anything either of us say on whether respawn rates affect it more or less is conjecture.
Whats so awful about him having to actually use his defensive system rather than belt rats be a literal irrelevence?
Same thing thats bad about a fleet logi in a vital battle having to do the same.
Yes there are, and I said that I wouldnt be surprised if these all get addressed in time providing the data they (CCP) get after this is implemented supports their hypothesis, and mine, that there is literally no harm in mandating manual control for anyone except no-attention NPC killing activities
This is a good idea, and has been suggested often.
It doesn’t however address this change, as people will be able to AFK farm all the same. They simply need to drop an MTU before dropping drones.
Not much of a change for them.
This change isn’t related to income, as that’s been addressed with the DBS and ESS systems.
If you are talking about respawn rates, then I assume you are pointing to SoV null, which afaik, respawn rates have already been reduced before.
Asking to change rates further will probably nullify any benefits of upgrading a system and mantaining high ADMs, and won’t deal with people AFK farming, let’s say, COSMOS sites, in completely different parts of the universe.
If your suggesiton is to just change NPC respawn rates across the globe, then you fail to realize how that would be the thing affecting everyone, both AFK and active users, from any weapon system.
Again, this is a god idea.
No one in this thread is trying to argue that anomalies, and even missions, don’t need a rework, to be dynamic and entertaining like abyss and emerging conduits.
Still, you should be aware that actually developing that kind of content requires development time, and it’s not as easy to test and implement as a small bandaid change like this.
A bandaid change isn’t as good as a full rework of a system, but if it manages to address the issue at hand, then why not?
Yes, there’s passive income streams, that have been designed from the ground up to be passive.
They don’t give great profits when compared to other forms of active gameplay though, unless you are putting a similar amount of effort, let’s say, managing 20+ PI production planets in multiple chars daily, or keeping up to date with 100s of market orders in an hour to hour basis.
Ratting, which wasn’t even supposed to be passive in the first place, got out of hand, so CCP is addressing the passive nature of it with a change that will have little to no effect on active drone users.
Drones won’t be attacking the closest targets to them anymore, so there’s more space for user error, attacking a target that’s kms away rather than next to the drones, but that also gives room for the player to learn how to manage their drones and target priorities better.
It’s completely unlike a change that would, let’s say, cut drones damage by half, as that would change the entire system, without leaving room for players to make up for it with either skill or different fits.
Interesting move, CCP.
I used to do missions semi-afk with multiple accounts. I guess I will have to lean more into other things than “setup-then-afk” missioning. I don’t need to watch until i’m targeted, (put auto-target on) and then right click the enemy then go back to afking until locking sounds appear. This will not change my semi-AFK missioning, but it will keep me from going to the toilet within a mission unless I just sent my drones to fight… I better invest in socks and empty bottles. 
I Just did some testing on Sisi.
Apparently, the drones, if aggressed, won’t hit back, and if they lose their target they will slowboat to your ship.
1 Like
pvp, and anything where it isn’t the same thing over and over.
Nice. Now read my post again. That part about “autonomy of drones”.
After that change, drones are just another type of missiles. A unique part of the PvE game removed. And for what?
- People defending this change seem to have their drones set to passive anyway, they lose or win nothing.
- Botters just need to adapt some code and are not affected.
I still don’t get the benefit of this move. Nothing is gained but a unique weapon style of the game is lost.
2 Likes
Correct. Only those set to automatic lose something.
Then you are being very obtuse because the reason is written clearly in the announcement.
Not that this change is about botters, but have you noticed just how many “little changes” they have had to recode for recently?
Before calling me obtuse, maybe you should also read the announcement again:
So the goal is to move NPC killing activities closer towards attentive player interactions. But interestingly drones still behave autonomous in PvP. That’s the part I don’t get. Drones act differently now in PvE and PvP. Thats the exact opposite of the goal stated in the announcement.
I stick to what I said before: this “solution” solves nothing (imho) and removes a unique part of the game. Which is sad.
1 Like
How is it? There is no such thing as non-attentive PvP, unless you mean ganking someone whose AFK and its not like the drones autonomous or not are going to make a difference in that.
The goal stated is
PvP is not a NPC killing activity, therefore is explictly not included in the change because in the reason for the change, its stated clearly its PvE thats the target.
1 Like
Oh boy, here comes the post about how this discrepancy between drone auto-aggression in PvE and PvP is too great a change that players will never be able to adjust, throw the community into chaotic confusion and how it’s going to kill EVE as we know it.
2 Likes
Read: PvE should be more like “attentive player interactions” (PvP?).
But funny enough, drones now behave differently in PvE and PvP. Alone this fact proves the goal stated in the announcement is not reached and this solution not a good one (imho). If it’s about preventing AFK-PvE, there must be better solutions.
I used to do PvE in an active manner, and autonomous drones were a part of it. Now drones are just some weird form of missiles. This game loses something and not much is won.
2 Likes
No? Where are you getting this.
Read CCP Paradox’s statement again.
They want more attentive player interaction when killing NPCs.
They didn’t say that they want PvE to be more like PvP. That’s you putting words in their mouth. Don’t argue in bad faith by suggesting that CCP said something they didn’t.
Then this change will not impact you in any way.
How does that prove that the goal of lowering unattentive play during PvE is not being reached?
How does anything in PvP have to do with that goal?
This is some sort of wierd mantra because they really arent.
We could discuss all day how “attentive player interactions” is meant by CCP.
One could read it’s about making PvE attentive like PvP. Another could read preventing AFK-PvE. I still think crippling drones autonomy is the opposite of the former and is a bad way of reaching the latter.
Make NPCs more intelligent or add reasons for players to move in PvE. This would actually add something to the game, instead of removing something unique.
Please don’t quote me out of context:
1 Like
He’s right about context Scoots, if he used auto-drones then he did PvE in a non-attentive manner, and so his farming is now affected.
I wish people would just be up front about their reasons for refusing to accept a change.
Wouldnt change my mind, but would make for healthier debate.
Why?
This is a separate issue altogether though.
Do players want NPCs to be “more intelligent”? Sure, but that’s irrelevant here.
Do players want reasons to be active in PvE? Sure, but again, that’s irrelevant.
See, the reason I have a problem with such a claim is that this only really works for the first frigate in a site.
Currently, you warp in, launch drones, and they’ll auto-aggress the first NPC that aggresses you. In a majority of contexts, it’s a frigate (or maybe an NPC tower), because they lock the fastest and engage you. After that, every other NPC you actively engage with your weapons, your Drones will attempt to join and focus fire.
Does this change have an impact? Objectively, yes.
But what will be the actual practice impact of this change?
A player warps into a site, launches drones, they orbit. The player starts to lock a target, and then cycles (let’s just say Cruise Missiles on a Rattlesnake). As soon as that player cycles the launcher, the drones that he’s launched will attempt to engage the same target.
Compared to the beneficial impact that this will have against low-attention multiboxers, I cannot agree that this minor inconvenience (of drones auto-aggressing the first npc frigate) is enough of a drawback to a player’s experience that CCP should not implement this change.
2 Likes
I agree, and I accept you were looking at it in fact in the best light for him.
But to be honest, we arent exactly getting transparency on intent or data from folk objecting, so tbh they could just be saying anything.
1 Like
Calling me “farming” without having any proof doesn’t make this debate healthier for sure.