@chemical_art, are you saying that you can win a game with only spending 10,000 K (or maybe 13,000 K due to the HW's contribution)? Even with non-lazy AI?QuoteRemember, any comparisions to CSG's is a no go, since anyone who uses low aip games didn't use
10,000 k is nowhere near enough to win.
You see, since we cannot agree on that, everything else is mot.
10k is plenty.
Even on Diff 7 I'd consider that alarming. On 8+ I'd consider that a major balance problem.
Edit: wait, now your post says 100k. Which I would agree is plenty, but Faulty was talking about 10k. <developer-confused> ;)
Did you play with Lazy AI on or off?Looking at the saves, he had lazy off AND CSGs on. They're somewhat redundant (I'm happy to accept a non-Lazy game as valid for balance feedback even with CSGs off) but he definitely wasn't cutting corners there.
If off, how did you get past the (supposed to be) sizable strategic reserves?Superweapons, I'm thinking.
I'm wondering if the ARS's granting both mkI and mkII is too nice. Though they were not well favored back when they only gave the mkI. Maybe they could just give you an extra 1000 K on-capture or something like that.
Though, some people may, well, not kill you, but at least yell at you some, for nerfing something so deeply ingrained in the "metagame" by this point.That's what I'm here for! (whether I mean "being yelled at" and/or "changing deeply-ingrained stuff" I will deliberately leave ambiguous)
Are you sure its not both? :)Though, some people may, well, not kill you, but at least yell at you some, for nerfing something so deeply ingrained in the "metagame" by this point.That's what I'm here for! (whether I mean "being yelled at" and/or "changing deeply-ingrained stuff" I will deliberately leave ambiguous)
There is doubt?Are you sure its not both? :)Though, some people may, well, not kill you, but at least yell at you some, for nerfing something so deeply ingrained in the "metagame" by this point.That's what I'm here for! (whether I mean "being yelled at" and/or "changing deeply-ingrained stuff" I will deliberately leave ambiguous)
I'm totally ok with ARS not giving Mark IIs, especially if the Mark III cost comes down as was discussed in another thread elsewhere. I don't really even need anything to compensate beyond that. Actually, yeah, one thing. Can we get the resource multipliers for higher marks (III+) looked at? They are just too high for fleet ships. Starships they are fine.
One of the reasons is because I kind of view the bonus ship I select as a major component to a game. That's what I'm planning to use to win. But when I get an ARS I get Mark II free and that quickly makes those ships that randomly show up much more prominent since often I haven't unlocked Mark II of my starting ship. A silly reason maybe, but I always feel my starter bonus ship gets the short end of the stick.
| Mark | Stat multiplier | Current Resource Multiplier (2*(mk-1) past Mk. I) | Proposed Resource Multiplier (1.5*(mk-1) past Mk. II) |
| 1 | 1x | 1x | 1x |
| 2 | 2x | 2x | 2x |
| 3 | 3x | 4x | 3x |
| 4 | 4x | 6x | 4.5x |
| 5 | 5x | 8x | 6x |
Yea, I'm not sure if this proof of concept really should prompt any change. You said you would be shocked if someone did it on 7/7, but didn't outright say it would be a balance problem unless it happened on at least 8/8, presumably without golems or botnet too.Well, I said winning 7/7 (non-lazy) with only spending 13,000 K would be alarming.
PS. Thank you Free BBCode Table Generator Tool (http://www.teamopolis.com/tools/bbcode-table-generator.aspx)Bah, just copy from spreadsheet and regex-replace
"^"=>"[tr][td]"
"$"=>"[/td][/tr]"
"\t"=>"[/td][td]"I do it manually. With the keyboard.PS. Thank you Free BBCode Table Generator Tool (http://www.teamopolis.com/tools/bbcode-table-generator.aspx)Bah, just copy from spreadsheet and regex-replaceCode: [Select]"^"=>"[tr][td]"
"$"=>"[/td][/tr]"
"\t"=>"[/td][td]"
then add the table tags to either side, done ;)
But really like, I'm pretty awful at strategy games and I want to be able to play against the AI at maximum intelligence. You can't do that on not-difficulty 7, and I actually struggle with difficulty 7 quite a bit as it is. Making ARSs weaker and all that for the sake of the most hardcore players might be a bit much.I'm not sure you understand. He only spent 500 K the entire game. He had over 40,000 K left at the end of the game. Even if ARS got nothing in return you're out a maximum of 12,500 K to get the mkII unlocks yourself.
Did you play with Lazy AI on or off?Looking at the saves, he had lazy off AND CSGs on. They're somewhat redundant (I'm happy to accept a non-Lazy game as valid for balance feedback even with CSGs off) but he definitely wasn't cutting corners there.QuoteIf off, how did you get past the (supposed to be) sizable strategic reserves?Superweapons, I'm thinking.
I do not think the research stations are the balance problem for this.
I could have done this (more slowly for sure) with caps of level 1. I did not even use the hacker station to choose what ship to use.
IMO, the problem is that I'm completely unopposed until the AIP reaches 140 or so. Waves, reinforcements and default garrison is pathetic and weak until then.
I've got to say, Lazy AI is confusing to me in terms of naming. Having Lazy AI on makes the game easier. Having CSGs off makes the game easier.They're in different categories in the lobby; in the AI Mods section of the lobby (where the Lazy toggle is) everything defaults to off. Flipping the Lazy toggle to a Vigilant toggle there would be like flipping the "No Waves" toggle to a "Sends Waves" toggle :)
I've got to say, Lazy AI is confusing to me in terms of naming. Having Lazy AI on makes the game easier. Having CSGs off makes the game easier.They're in different categories in the lobby; in the AI Mods section of the lobby (where the Lazy toggle is) everything defaults to off. Flipping the Lazy toggle to a Vigilant toggle there would be like flipping the "No Waves" toggle to a "Sends Waves" toggle :)
I think the idea is that if it is currently checked, it will become unchecked, and visa-versa.I believe I understand that part. What I'm saying is that every other item in that part of the lobby defaults to unchecked, so this one should too. Since I want "non Lazy" to be the default, that means making "non Lazy" = unchecked, which means making checked = "Lazy".
I think the idea is that if it is currently checked, it will become unchecked, and visa-versa.I believe I understand that part. What I'm saying is that every other item in that part of the lobby defaults to unchecked, so this one should too. Since I want "non Lazy" to be the default, that means making "non Lazy" = unchecked, which means making checked = "Lazy".
New thread to find a better name then?If you like :) The name it currently has was picked from 4 or 5 player suggestions in the thread which spawned the toggle, iirc.
I do not think the research stations are the balance problem for this.
I could have done this (more slowly for sure) with caps of level 1. I did not even use the hacker station to choose what ship to use.
IMO, the problem is that I'm completely unopposed until the AIP reaches 140 or so. Waves, reinforcements and default garrison is pathetic and weak until then.
Which has sort of been touched on in other threads, and what the "lazy AI" off was supposed to help address if you can stay very low AIP to the late game, but then have a much harder "wall" if you do this as the AI won't skimp on HW defense even at low AIP with this option.
Considering that you were able to out produce the non-lazy strategic reserve with almost no knowledge and only Mk I and II fleetships and Mk. I starships, it may be that strategic reserves need a buff.
That said, I still do think that the AI's "base strength" could go up some in return for its growth over AIP going down a bit.
Which neinzul ship were you using?
Looking at the saves, he had lazy off AND CSGs on. They're somewhat redundant (I'm happy to accept a non-Lazy game as valid for balance feedback even with CSGs off)
I think the issue is the Lazy toggle is Disabling part of the AIs homeworld defenses, and Lazy doesn't convey that to me. Sadly, Indifferent and Arrogant don't either. Limited maybe, or Limited Defense.Careless?
The past few patches have been a continual set of nerfs to the AI that I don't think were warranted or necessary.
People keep playing on difficulties higher than they should be, then complaining that they can't win. We keep nerfing the game until this kind of thing is possible.
Unless people are losing on 1/1, I'm not sure why we constantly need to keep nerfing the AI.
Were you able to inflict enough lasting damage before the reserve took you down?Basically, yes. Routine is: have the ships run though the lvl4 world next to the AI homeworld, then rush the post guard, die, wait for the reserve to unspawn (a few minutes) and repeat. It takes 1-3 runs to take out undefended posts, a few dozen runs to clear core shields.
Were you able to inflict enough lasting damage before the reserve took you down?Basically, yes. Routine is: have the ships run though the lvl4 world next to the AI homeworld, then rush the post guard, die, wait for the reserve to unspawn (a few minutes) and repeat. It takes 1-3 runs to take out undefended posts, a few dozen runs to clear core shields.
Basically, after a few trips, most of what was not reserve has been "aggroed" and becomes threat. Since there is a world between the homeworld and the player's world, they go there, I wipe them out, and since the homeworld is barely alerted, it never gets significant reinforcements. Problem becomes how to repawn your troops fast enough. I used neinzuls, but I could have just waited to amass enough ressources to launch a few runs and done so with missiles and bombers. It would have taken a LOT more time though.
Making their spawn longer is not a solution, it's pretty easy to set up decoys (a few transports / ships), then going in with the ships / a transport with the ships to take down a guard post. Or, just target another guard post can do the trick. Or get in the homeworld via another wormhole.
The past few patches have been a continual set of nerfs to the AI that I don't think were warranted or necessary.
People keep playing on difficulties higher than they should be, then complaining that they can't win. We keep nerfing the game until this kind of thing is possible.
Unless people are losing on 1/1, I'm not sure why we constantly need to keep nerfing the AI.
Finally, this is a 7/7 game. It's kinda supposed not to be hardcore.I agree, but there's a huge difference between "not hardcore" and "you can win even if you ignore the entire Knowledge mechanic" ;)
Finally, this is a 7/7 game. It's kinda supposed not to be hardcore.I agree, but there's a huge difference between "not hardcore" and "you can win even if you ignore the entire Knowledge mechanic" ;)
Where there any other memorable bits while you were doing this? Seems like it would be a fun thing to fool around with between other games.
I don't think it's terrible that an experienced player can wipe the floor with diff 7 AI, even under some fairly severe restrictions, especially with spirecraft enabled.
Still mulling over details of the ARS MK II theory.
By mulling I don't mean deciding whether ARS should lose their II marks. That I feel should be done. The matter is how the K prices fall.
On the one hand, I want II's to get a narrow decrease in price. Very narrow, like to 2K. The result is because while their current values are fine, I think that is because you purchase them for your triangle ships, and for bonus ships it is very. It doesn't make that much of an impact, that extra 500 K, for having one or even 2, but against 5 ships it adds up. I also want III's to get a sharp decrease. I simply can't justify spending 6k on any mark of unit when so many other options (options as in I can select two options for that price) are available.
One the other hand. I always get ARS hacks, because I value their options out of the limited hacking options most. As a result, the units I get from ARS are by a vast majority units I'd get II's from anyway. With hacking being expanded though I won't hack ARS so much due to opportunity cost, so the free II's wouldn't be so often units I'd pay for, meaning I may come out ahead even if the lost of 2.5k from the free II's are "recouped" because I'd save 2k from getting the few units I want to III while the ones I don't like remain at I.
Hmm, so much flex on details, since this is interconnected with lots of other things, some not existing yet.
But even so, I want free II's to go...with the hope of cheaper III's
Don't you still get the Mk. II version for free if you hack for it?
Isn't a big problem that you situationally get MkIV for free with your MkIII purchase, if its feasible to take the factory for it?
How about:
-Remove the free MarkIIs from ARSs.
-Reduce Mark II Fleetships' cost to 2000 knowledge
-And Mark IIIs' cost to 4000 knowledge.
This change would make Advanced Factories more useful, make people hack more and think more about which ARSs they capture. People probably wouldn't just be like "herp a derp gonna capture all ARSs in the galaxy every game" anymore. Only useful ships types for the current situation would be captured and upgraded to higher marks. Upgrading to higher Mark levels would also be more rewarding because it would be cheaper.
At the moment unlocking Mark IIs costs 2500 knowledge and Mark IIIs 6000 knowledge = 8500 knowledge
2000+4000=6000
8500-6000=2500=Mark II fleet ship. So I think this change would be reasonable.
I keep gravitating to these values, for exactly the reasons you describe.Oh cool. I actually posted that before reading your posts. "Great minds think alike."
You just put it in a lot less words ;)
While reducing the cost of mkIIs is one way to go in response to the ARS's no longer giving mkIIs, that not actually the way I want to do it because 2500 for a mkII actually seems like a fair deal in the general analysis.
Removing the "and you can get IVs with a certain capturable" part from the III cost is something I'm already planning to do, but it does go well with the ARS change, yes.
So what I'm currently planning to do is:
- Remove free-mkII-from-ARS
- Have capturing an ARS immediately give every human player 500 extra knowledge. Also considering 1000 but that may be too generous. Anyway, 500 would have the effect of reducing mkII costs for those (ARS) types to 2000 if that's where you wanted to spend it. But you wouldn't have to.
- Reduce mkIII fleet ship tech costs from 6000 => 3750. Or 4000 if people prefer the rounder number. 3750 is what a mkIII should cost if 2500 is fair for mkII and mkIII were literally only 1.5x as useful as a mkII. In practice mkIII is slightly better than 1.5x a mkII, but I think moving back towards a slight encouragement of specialization isn't a bad thing.
While reducing the cost of mkIIs is one way to go in response to the ARS's no longer giving mkIIs, that not actually the way I want to do it because 2500 for a mkII actually seems like a fair deal in the general analysis.
Removing the "and you can get IVs with a certain capturable" part from the III cost is something I'm already planning to do, but it does go well with the ARS change, yes.
So what I'm currently planning to do is:
- Remove free-mkII-from-ARS
- Have capturing an ARS immediately give every human player 500 extra knowledge. Also considering 1000 but that may be too generous. Anyway, 500 would have the effect of reducing mkII costs for those (ARS) types to 2000 if that's where you wanted to spend it. But you wouldn't have to.
- Reduce mkIII fleet ship tech costs from 6000 => 3750. Or 4000 if people prefer the rounder number. 3750 is what a mkIII should cost if 2500 is fair for mkII and mkIII were literally only 1.5x as useful as a mkII. In practice mkIII is slightly better than 1.5x a mkII, but I think moving back towards a slight encouragement of specialization isn't a bad thing.
While reducing the cost of mkIIs is one way to go in response to the ARS's no longer giving mkIIs, that not actually the way I want to do it because 2500 for a mkII actually seems like a fair deal in the general analysis.
Removing the "and you can get IVs with a certain capturable" part from the III cost is something I'm already planning to do, but it does go well with the ARS change, yes.
So what I'm currently planning to do is:
- Remove free-mkII-from-ARS
- Have capturing an ARS immediately give every human player 500 extra knowledge. Also considering 1000 but that may be too generous. Anyway, 500 would have the effect of reducing mkII costs for those (ARS) types to 2000 if that's where you wanted to spend it. But you wouldn't have to.
- Reduce mkIII fleet ship tech costs from 6000 => 3750. Or 4000 if people prefer the rounder number. 3750 is what a mkIII should cost if 2500 is fair for mkII and mkIII were literally only 1.5x as useful as a mkII. In practice mkIII is slightly better than 1.5x a mkII, but I think moving back towards a slight encouragement of specialization isn't a bad thing.
I would like to propose a change to the reinforcements mechanics on top of this.
Part of the reason this game was doable may have been the devourer cleaning things up... but maybe the whole reinforcements mechanic is weak. Basically playing low-AIP means having next to no defense on most worlds. How about leaving the alerted reinforcement as-is, but giving a reinforcement wave (capped at a firepower which would be a percentage of AIP depending on diff level) on every non-alerted world ? This would need to be multiplied for "turtle" AI types of course =).
It also would help with the reserve. The AI should notice it has no ships on the homeworld...
- Remove free-mkII-from-ARSI think 4500 would be closer to right. People usually will have a FactIV, especially with CSGs/Lazy off.
- Have capturing an ARS immediately give every human player 500 extra knowledge. Also considering 1000 but that may be too generous. Anyway, 500 would have the effect of reducing mkII costs for those (ARS) types to 2000 if that's where you wanted to spend it. But you wouldn't have to.
- Reduce mkIII fleet ship tech costs from 6000 => 3750. Or 4000 if people prefer the rounder number. 3750 is what a mkIII should cost if 2500 is fair for mkII and mkIII were literally only 1.5x as useful as a mkII. In practice mkIII is slightly better than 1.5x a mkII, but I think moving back towards a slight encouragement of specialization isn't a bad thing.
I think 4500 would be closer to right. People usually will have a FactIV, especially with CSGs/Lazy off.I'm fine with the AdvFact just being an awesome thing to have. If it turns out to be too good I'd rather handle that with something directly related to the AdvFact rather than putting the burden on the mkIII tech costs.
But why are we doing this again?Over the years there's been a lot of "power creep" specifically in the things the game gives you for free. Most/all of the mkI starships and turrets used to require K to unlock, for example. Stuff like transports also had to be unlocked. But many players weren't getting any fun out of those units being in the game because they wouldn't try something new if it cost irreplaceable K (not particularly rational since you can just play throwaway games to learn stuff, but this is one area where rationality is beside the point). And then we added the free IIs to the ARS's (back when CSGs were introduced, there was a lot of complaint that ARS's weren't worth taking; since then we've added hacking and drastically improved the balance of bonus ship types).
But this is a net buff to the player...Only if you already unlock mkIII fleet ships, and only a big one if you already unlock several mkIII fleet ships. Quite a bit of feedback I've heard lately is from people who do not do so because 6000 is too much for it and they don't count on getting AdvFact's. If this makes AdvFact's too good, well, they'll get theirs.
If this makes AdvFact's too good, well, they'll get theirs.
Fair enough. This will be a buff to me, though >DAnd you'll get yours ;)
And it may be sufficient, we'll see; I'm not on a nerfhammer campaign so much as not wanting to let things slide further towards a point where 7.6 is where something like 5 should be.
But it does seem that player buffs have outpaced AI buffs in the 7-through-7.6 range. The ARS-giving-IIs thing is just the part that sticks out as most obvious to start correcting that. And it may be sufficient, we'll see; I'm not on a nerfhammer campaign so much as not wanting to let things slide further towards a point where 7.6 is where something like 5 should be.
At low AIP, yes. At "higher" AIP, errrrr... no.Well, in my two recent 7ish games I've been downright careless about AIP (playing much of it around 300) and it's just not hard. There was the one time I forgot an avenger, and that was... interesting. But considering I still won, despite that going heavily pear-shaped while in the neighborhood of 300 AIP, it seemed pretty tame. And I'm not actually all that good at the game.
At low AIP, yes. At "higher" AIP, errrrr... no.Well, in my two recent 7ish games I've been downright careless about AIP (playing much of it around 300) and it's just not hard. There was the one time I forgot an avenger, and that was... interesting. But considering I still won, despite that going heavily pear-shaped while in the neighborhood of 300 AIP, it seemed pretty tame. And I'm not actually all that good at the game.
So, potentially, AI difficulty is playing too much of a factor in AI strength? (aka, 7 is too easy, but 9 is too hard/restrictive, aka, the "slope" is too great between these difficulties)Oh, I don't think 9 is too hard, for what 9 is supposed to be. And I think there's a point on the spectrum for everyone. I just think 7 is too easy, and since it's a reference point instead of just-another-difficulty-level I don't want to let it just keep sliding that way. I'm not wanting to make it hard, but right now it seems it can be won just fine while playing relatively carelessly.
Honestly my first thought on starting this thread out was: Of course you can win without using knowledge as long as you're willing to wait for Mercenaries.I'm not worried about cases of a specific easily identifiable cheese (Mercenaries, in that case). Either the cheese can be ignored and the cheesemaster patted on the head, or the cheese can be nerfed.
I'd say they're the bigger threat to game balance by skilled players than ARSes giving mk 2 ships.
Mercenary Parasites and Beam Frigates are just amazing.
But I imagine somebody playing careful could win even without that if they're slow and especially with superweapons.
Again I kinda want to chime in and say that it'd be nice to have an easier setting that allows the AI to pull all of its tricks, yet isn't too dreadfully hard in terms of numbers and so forth. I don't want deliberately dumb AI, or I wouldn't have gotten AI War to begin with. So, I can't just lower the difficulty. Keeping the smarter AI is why I keep away from lower difficulties now. Now, maybe that shouldn't be difficulty 7. Maybe the AI can pull all of its tricks sooner, and a lower setting can be the 'old 7' while this 7 is moved further up to a more appropriate balance point. That lets players like me still fight smart AIs.Have you tried -X% handicap on the AI?
Again I kinda want to chime in and say that it'd be nice to have an easier setting that allows the AI to pull all of its tricks, yet isn't too dreadfully hard in terms of numbers and so forth. I don't want deliberately dumb AI, or I wouldn't have gotten AI War to begin with. So, I can't just lower the difficulty. Keeping the smarter AI is why I keep away from lower difficulties now. Now, maybe that shouldn't be difficulty 7. Maybe the AI can pull all of its tricks sooner, and a lower setting can be the 'old 7' while this 7 is moved further up to a more appropriate balance point. That lets players like me still fight smart AIs.I am keeping your situation in mind. Two thoughts, though:
If it is only around difficulty 7 or so, isn't that a sign that the various per difficulty multipliers (wave and defense ones in particular) need some adjusting, instead of some grand new set of mechanics?I'm bouncing between windows pretty fast over here (concocting very mean new AI feature, though you're probably safe from seeing it in a release for a while), was someone advocating new mechanics for the 7 thing? I'm just aiming at reducing any gratuitous niceness on the game's part.
concocting very mean new AI featureOoh. Special forces H/Ks (maybe as a plot)?
though you're probably safe from seeing it in a release for a whileAwww.
I'm bouncing between windows pretty fast over here (concocting very mean new AI feature, though you're probably safe from seeing it in a release for a while), was someone advocating new mechanics for the 7 thing? I'm just aiming at reducing any gratuitous niceness on the game's part.Keith, I love you when you the AI brutal :D
If it is only around difficulty 7 or so, isn't that a sign that the various per difficulty multipliers (wave and defense ones in particular) need some adjusting, instead of some grand new set of mechanics?I'm bouncing between windows pretty fast over here (concocting very mean new AI feature, though you're probably safe from seeing it in a release for a while), was someone advocating new mechanics for the 7 thing? I'm just aiming at reducing any gratuitous niceness on the game's part.
But what happened to the huge pile of SF ships I would normally see? They'd help a lot in slowing me down but I see nothing. Like literally nothing.SF is still in there. Quantities have been adjusted somewhat but still there. It's possible you've been on planets they wanted to defend long enough to clean them out and/or that your memories are based on higher difficulties.
I wonder if the H/K needs a foil.You and your dastardly plans to slaughter humanity.
Pot, meet kettle. ;DI wonder if the H/K needs a foil.You and your dastardly plans to slaughter humanity.
But what happened to the huge pile of SF ships I would normally see? They'd help a lot in slowing me down but I see nothing. Like literally nothing.SF is still in there. Quantities have been adjusted somewhat but still there. It's possible you've been on planets they wanted to defend long enough to clean them out and/or that your memories are based on higher difficulties.
Do you have a save of this SF seeming to just not groupng up as far as you can see for some reason?
Brain storming my new craft idea.
current name is AI crowd control.
A cruel parity of the Human Rights starship.
complete with shields and engine damage and paralyis.
Design to completely shut down Mobile forces only heavy defenses or swarmers can overwhelm the AI's version of crowd control.
thoughts?
Human Rights starshipOne of the more amusing typos of recent memory.
So an AI version of a Riot III?
"Dire Guardians" (or "Super Guardians" as we've discussed in the past) are something on the list for the next expansion. They wouldn't all be defensive-only, but some could be.
So an AI version of a Riot III?
Yes.
But remember that AI crowd control means "removing the crowd" altogether.
I'm doing some more brainstorming, but I'm thinking of making a line of AI super guardians which are more stubborn in holding a planet and uses different build points then regular reinforcements. Another idea would be to bring up the old zenith starship of a mobile fort as well. Need more time to flush out the idea though.
Human Rights starshipOne of the more amusing typos of recent memory.
Human Rights starshipOne of the more amusing typos of recent memory.
I was wondering if that ship name was a play on words, lol.
Couldn't there be an AI version with buffed damage?That would mean new unit defs for the alternate version and all its modules, etc. In other words, it sounds like work ;)
Couldn't there be an AI version with buffed damage?
At low AIP, yes. At "higher" AIP, errrrr... no.Well, in my two recent 7ish games I've been downright careless about AIP (playing much of it around 300) and it's just not hard. There was the one time I forgot an avenger, and that was... interesting. But considering I still won, despite that going heavily pear-shaped while in the neighborhood of 300 AIP, it seemed pretty tame. And I'm not actually all that good at the game.