POLL - How do you feel about an AI aggression?

[Norfolk nChance]

@koltes

Here’s the thing, and you know my answer already YES of course.

With all due respect is it a new idea? No.

The old idea which I liked was the ‘Smugglers Flag’ concept. Especially for PvE players here. Within a set petrol region/area the AI would check shipping. Take a FRENCH regional area for example. The French AI Patrols within visible range would approach and attack non-French or non-allied shipping. Match the defending BR leaving the balance outside the instance. The Smuggler Flag hides the player also... DLC Flags for different nations, NOT just 1x flag...

That was the old idea, but then the AI couldn’t chase down players in open-world effectively enough. Way too slow...

The replies here are on the whole in agreement with you, but with caveats. Split AI aggression levels, higher around a PORT Capital, less elsewhere. Also, PB protection services to stop the Gank.

Questions,

Can the Dev’s currently split aggression levels within NA-OW?

Can the Dev’s build a mechanic that will check regional zone traffic? Even if its just main Capital PORTs...

Can the AI fleet respond effectively enough to an inbound threat realistically?

 

Your Question is correct for the Dev’s and NA-OW... YES or NO

The Community however, need more depth and scale. I doubt the Dev’s could give individual options to the settings. I doubt the Dev’s right now could have different AI aggression levels for different situations. I doubt the additional load factor on the servers would be available to have regional port checking even if its just to the handful of main PORT Capitals...

You are spot on in your thinking. The Game, realistically is nowhere near what you suggest and more importantly the additional depth the community want.

Would love to be proved wrong...

 

 

Norfolk nChance.

Ps. voted YES

 

Edited July 19, 2019 by Norfolk nChance

[Aldeveron]

My vote (aggressive NPCs):

In PvE: NO! NO! NO!
In PvP: I don't much care.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Aldeveron

[Cetric de Cornusiac]

The switchable stuff has all been proposed already. Just take it. (And same method as suggested should also work on PvP server)

 

[gbutterfield]

if you want to be attacked the place to be is PvP the whole concept behind PvE is you don't have to be looking over your shoulder all the time, once NPC's can attack, you might as well allow players to attack players from enemy countries, oh wait we have that already, its called PVP

and while I'm having a say. Prepared is a perk, now that NPC's have it its no longer a perk, so now it needs to be standard so it frees up a perk slot, also how the chuff can NPC's fire a full broadside  while I'm still in the entering combat screen I lost half my armour on one side before I even saw the other ship

Edited July 24, 2019 by gbutterfield

[Isogen]

Nope. Terrible idea. However, wouldn't mind it as a voluntary event.

[gbutterfield]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 1:15 PM, Mascarino said:

But you are. How do you do hostility on ports? PvE 😛

I'm seeing a lot of PvP players saying that they  don't want this and why should they have it just for PvE players, truth is  PvE players don't want this either, the question here is who does want it

[eViLoZzy]

I don't agree at all for NPC aggression on the PvE server, but do think that a PvP style battle arena would work there. A circle area for PvP at random locations.

But even if the attacking NPC's are tried out in PvE, then at least make sure that it is fair. No aggressive elite's, no large fleets, and no 1st & 2nd rates in those fleets.

Perhaps if only a special type of NPC was used, similar to a 'pirate' faction but NPC only with no nation or home port. This make sense as the PvE map does not change and no faction gets more territory to trade in.

[hoarmurath]

The poll doesn't matter, because the opinion on the subject from a few dozens players that are still here doesn't matter. What really matter is the opinion of the hundreds that left the game because of the total lack of content beside pvp. Npc aggro is content. It's not enough content (what happened to exploration?), but it's something.

 

If it can bring back a few players, then it's a step in the right direction.

[LIONOFWALES]

I voted yes on this because... players run AFK all the time and I kill them AFK. Traders, you know who you are and you were never safe to begin with... this will encourage those traders to be more wary of their surroundings. The effect will be the same for raiders... raiders will need to be more carful not to hunt so much around ports... they will need to do their hunting between the ports instead... er as I have since day one because port hunting is not involved enough for me... that is I plan my kills pretty far out... But I am crazy and I don't think everyone wants to play the same game I do.... so I can see this the other way as well, but I vote yes because it supports my style of gameplay as I play now. That is... I am never AFK, I am always in control of my ship and... I know that I can disengage anyone. Also something to consider regarding aggressive NPC's … you know all that port camping that goes on? maybe players wouldn't port camp as much if the AI was feisty, lets think about that as well.

If it makes the game a challenge... then I am all for it. I am not playing Naval action to twiddle my thumbs and just watch all the colors in my screen... I am out to slay and be constructive and if I run the risk of being attacked on long sails by NPC's on top of players then I will at least stay awake while I play. I would find it fun if I got engaged by an enemy NPC out in the middle of nowhere while I am roaming the vast ocean. It will give me more reason to pull my spyglass out!

Three cheers for the frigates and their gallant Captains.

[LIONOFWALES]

On 7/24/2019 at 8:04 AM, gbutterfield said:

if you want to be attacked the place to be is PvP the whole concept behind PvE is you don't have to be looking over your shoulder all the time, once NPC's can attack, you might as well allow players to attack players from enemy countries, oh wait we have that already, its called PVP

Traders were always on the look for pirates... I understand... you just want to chill and slay... I really do understand.... but I think the devs want the game to be as constructive as possible... they are seeing it needs to be a bit more engaging in some respects... lets generate ideas for making the game engaging and fun for everyone.

[LIONOFWALES]

If aggressive open world NPCs reduce afk sailing... then I am all for it.

[Macjimm]

1 hour ago, LIONOFWALES said:

If aggressive open world NPCs reduce afk sailing... then I am all for it.

Are you opposed to other players AFK sailing?  Or just yourself?

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Macjimm

[eViLoZzy]

When I trade on PVE, I can't go AFK for any more than the time it takes to make a coffee. This because the new mission trading system requires me to enter nearly every port on my travels, delivering and picking up new cargo/passengers.

I'm still really undecided on this matter as the aggressive NPC may work, it will require players to arm their traders and have an escort in the their fleet, but it may also kill the trading idea in both servers completely.

What I would really like to see tbh, is a return to the old trading system with individual weights for trade items and stocked ports again. This new cargo system is just a DHL delivery thing and posties have a very boring job. And also the actual postal service between free ports was a great idea, why was it taken away? Makes no sense, all these new changes seem to be aimed at a chosen few 😕

 

[Nicolau Coelho]

I am all for it

[Allons!]

Definitely no on War Server, we have enouph challenge with other players, AI will always come when u don´t need them, its gonna be a constant threat to traders and newbies and since we still have "features" like insta-boarding i expect bugs & problems. Beta is over, no more fiddling with mechanics pls. Best, Allons!

[Teutonic]

1 hour ago, Allons! said:

Definitely no on War Server, we have enouph challenge with other players, AI will always come when u don´t need them, its gonna be a constant threat to traders and newbies and since we still have "features" like insta-boarding i expect bugs & problems. Beta is over, no more fiddling with mechanics pls. Best, Allons!

can you imagine being caught by AI, the AI has lower BR and then an enemy player is able to "catch up" and join the battle to kill you?

it's makes my blood boil lol.

[blademage]

Aggro NPCs would totally change gameplay.

In a controlled and limited way it would be really nice, dependent on the server.

On PVE  eg. Frigates attacking players on economy missions, giving sense to armament or fleet-escorts

Making wares illegal in some towns/nations popping up a smuggler flag could make local NPC coastguard interested in players.

NPCs fleets bringing up a blockade to a port when (or before) they "raid" it. Players would need to sneak by or fight.

NPC fleeets hitting each other in battles and they stay open for members of the participating nations to join (possibly even allowing "PvP" on PVE Server - noone has to join).

But what I would see to be a really bad idea anyways are all NPCs of different nations automatically or randomly attacking all enemy players or having combat rating in mind, NPC fleets just attacking players with lesser combat rating (eg. Elite Santi+12 attacking a Bellona+2x Indiaman).

 

[Horatiou]

On 7/19/2019 at 7:35 AM, Admiral Olsen said:

On PVE we should have a turn-off switch to completely avoid aggressive AI. It's the Peace Server, players should not be forced  into battles... 😕

We should switch off the care-bear server entirely. 

 

An AI's aggression should be based off of strategic importance (Capital Zones) or BR Rating. If an enemy ganker approaches a port, say, Kingston, then the AI should develop hostility towards that player and intercept, including other AIs within the vicinity. If the AI aggression is developed right it will quell the efforts of gankers, and just not end up a general nuisance. 

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by George Burton

[Liq]

5 hours ago, George Burton said:

We should switch off the care-bear server entirely. 

 

An AI's aggression should be based off of strategic importance (Capital Zones) or BR Rating. If an enemy ganker approaches a port, say, Kingston, then the AI should develop hostility towards that player and intercept, including other AIs within the vicinity. If the AI aggression is developed right it will quell the efforts of gankers, and just not end up a general nuisance. 

 

As the amount of npcs sailing OW is limited (and you can "keep" an npc fleet stuck in battle instance), i can already see the tribunal reports of people doing exactly that, keeping npcs busy with alts / friends so they dont get disturbed by them

[Karvala]

NPC aggression in OW on the PvE server is such a bad idea I can scarcely believe it's even being considered.

The bottom line is this: at the moment players can already fight NPCs, but they do so when they want, i.e. they can fit it into their playing styling, real life schedule etc.  The only difference with aggressive NPCs is that now the AI chooses when players will fight, and that choice is taken away from players.

That's it, it's just the removal of control/choice from players for no benefit whatsoever.  It doesn't buy you anything positive, unless driving a lot of players out of the game and closing the PvE server is the real objective, in which case: good job, you couldn't do it any more effectively.

[Captain2Strong]

it's not like this topic means anything! - get ready to ragequit

[Karvala]

1 hour ago, Immersive Ganking said:

"Ok guys I'm having an appointment in an hour, I'm logging off here in OW."

"Ok c u tomorror"

"Oh great I've just been tagged by this AI privateer with 20 seconds on my logout countdown ..."

Yeah, this is exactly the type of problem that occurs when you take control away from players and hand it to the AI instead.  I can't think of any other game without a pause facility, an immediate logout facility, a save/reload facility AND that allows the AI to attack you without warning or your consent.  It's a recipe for disaster.

[Aquillas]

I voted no. 

I'd rather like to see again a real economic life in game than more PVE in the war server.

RVR is dead, PVP is costly, grinding is omnipresent. What about fun to play?

[CrustyJohnson]

I'd be ok with Aggressive Ai if it were not Ai that just chase any player of any other nation around. I'd like it better if aggressive AI meant Ai that would send fleets to flip ports and raise hostility and initiate port battles.  and that aggressive AI were as rare as skull AI. 

[Seaside]

I am for OW aggression (At least in Pve). If you don't have it who is your threat ? Imagine a war where your enemy can't attack you and you only fight battles you know you can win.

That said it has to be done in a reasonable way. You cannot have AI chasing you half way around the world either. I think a timer where if the AI cannot engage you within a certain time limit then it stops chasing you. Since (I believe) we are talking about PVE server only why not give the player a slider to set the time limit themselves ?

For people who do not want OW aggression move the slider to zero. Those that do set their own time limit.

Since players do not fight each other in PVE this should not affect the gameplay of other players.

What I'm thinking is AI tags you. (You are notified or not ? ). The AI can only tag one player at a time. It chases you for the allotted period (Zero to whatever  you have set seconds/minutes). If it is unable to engage it reverts to it's original course.

Since we are not playing against each other I think this would work.

 

As for Pvp, I don't play Pvp so all  I'll say is Star citizen combines Pvp and Aggressive AI and I don't see too many complaints - some perhaps but not many.

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Seaside