A two part question:

[chemical_art]

I ask this question because right now, spirecraft and golems don't feel strong enough relative to starships and fleetships, but starships and fleetships feel strong enough relative to each other.


When I play with just fleetships and starships, everything feels right. But golems and spirecraft feel weak. Way, way too weak.

So I ask, am I the only one? Or do others feel the same way, and if so, how would you address it?

Which, in your mind, would be more efficent:

1) For golems and spirecraft, given value inflation, have their "costs" reduced, in some way, whether it be via resource costs, exo costs, etc
2) For fleetships and starships their value, in terms of overall stats, be reduced by a certain factor so that they preserve a balance of power within each other, while spirecraft and golems maintain their current parameters


...

[TechSY730]

I've been advocating for a "deflation" of stats for quite some time. Maybe all fleet ships, starships, guardians, turrets, guard posts, forcefields, and non-critical structures could have their damage and health related stats reduced by a factor of 100, but spirecraft, golems, or above, and irreplacibles, and the like, they would get it reduced by like only a factor of 20 or 25, or something like that.

That would help trim off some of those extra zeros all around, but give an automatic relative buff to the golems and spirecraft and similar. Maybe too much of a buff at first, but it would probably push it closer to balanced.

[chemical_art]

I've been thinking that, TechSY730, but I wonder if that plan is in development.

I really think it is needed for the future of AI War, even more so then things like armor and such.


Even me, champion of the buffs to starships, admit that they are too strong relative to golems.

[Faulty Logic]

1) For golems and spirecraft, given value inflation, have their "costs" reduced, in some way, whether it be via resource costs, exo costs, etc
2) For fleetships and starships their value, in terms of overall stats, be reduced by a certain factor so that they preserve a balance of power within each other, while spirecraft and golems maintain their current parameters

I definitely prefer option 2. I'd start with a x4 nerf to the non-superweapons, and then tweak from there. Golems used to solo AI systems as a matter of routine. Now they die before conquering one.

[Tridus]

I'd love to see some number deflation. As a less experienced player, so many gigantic numbers can get hard to deal with.  It feels (particularly when you've got Starships fighting big things) that everything works in increments of ten thousand, where the "real" numbers don't start until you get to the millions.

Now I know there's smaller numbers out there (Laser Gatling I's do 600 damage and the riot shotgun does 400, which aren't that big), but then you've got the Spire Starship doing millions against things with 20 million health.

I guess it feels like you could chop a zero off the damage, health, and armor of everything without changing the game at all except to make it easier to read the numbers. Two zeroes would almost always work too, but wormhole guard posts would be attacking for 0.2 in that case.

As for the superweapons power level... probably best if I leave that to the experts to discuss. I will say that in my last game I had to leave my golems behind when I went to attack the AI Homeworlds, because they were proving somewhat less effective than I'd expect for what they cost (and compared to my highly beefed up Starship fleet).

[Radiant Phoenix]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: take two zeroes off all non-superweapons, and one zero off of superweapons, and see how things go from there.

(i.e., damage, HP, armor, and cost. Engine damage can maybe stay as-is)

Superweapons I am aware of:

• Warheads
• Avenger
• Hunter/Killers
• Mothership
• Golems
• Spirecraft
• Imperial Spire
• Champions

[Hearteater]

I'm putting together a rework using 10,000 health for Fighters, and scaling everything to that.  It's a touch more comprehensive than just a rescale, but hopefully I can have it sometime next week depending on how my weekend turns out.

[Bognor]

Two zeroes would almost always work too, but wormhole guard posts would be attacking for 0.2 in that case.

Wormhole Guard Posts' relative attack strength doesn't need to be preserved.  Their attack is token, existing only to make associated mobile ships wake up when your ships draw near.

[keith.lamothe]

I'm putting together a rework using 10,000 health for Fighters, and scaling everything to that.  It's a touch more comprehensive than just a rescale, but hopefully I can have it sometime next week depending on how my weekend turns out.

[TechSY730]

I'm putting together a rework using 10,000 health for Fighters, and scaling everything to that.  It's a touch more comprehensive than just a rescale, but hopefully I can have it sometime next week depending on how my weekend turns out.

Isn't it great to have fans willingly do for free what is essentially your job for you.

[Hearteater]

I've gotten more than enough hours out of AI Wars that I figure I should give some back .

[KDR_11k]

Would the player be able to survive a superweapon attack if those were buffed relative to the rest of the things?

[TechSY730]

Would the player be able to survive a superweapon attack if those were buffed relative to the rest of the things?

If this sort of thing happens, the health nerfs for exo-golems may need to be reinstated.

Isn't it still at 10% for golemite? If so, under this new scaling, that would be about right for golemite. 50% for exo-golems? (Which would make armored at 25%)

[TechSY730]

The reason I am advocated chopping "slightly more" than one 0 off of superweapon stats is that a 10x relative shift is a absolutely gigantic shift, much more than I think many people realize. It could easily overcome the bit of cost-effective lacklusterness of them compared to starships, so much so that it could even dominate to the point of being game-breakingly (as in, "I win button" even on difficulty 9) OP even for superweapons. Yes, a 10x shift can easily be that huge, especially if what you shifting wasn't that far behind to begin with.


However, scaling it down by the same amount would not accomplish anything. This is why I suggested dividing the superweapon stats by 20 or 25, so they get only a 5x or 4x relative shift. Yes, that is still huge, but less likely to break the game. If it still isn't enough, then maybe we can try something more. However, I really don't think superweapons are that far behind that they need an order of magnitude (base 10) relative buff.

EDIT: For the mathematically inclined among you, dividing the stats by 20 (5x relative buff) would be a ~1.30 order of magnitude reduction (~.70 orders of magnitude above relatively); dividing the stats by 25 (4x relative buff) would be a ~1.40 order of magnitude reduction (~.60 orders of magnitude above relatively)
As a base, dividing the stats by 10 (10x relative buff) would be a 1 order of magnitude reduction (1 order of magnitude above relatively)

[chemical_art]

Considering the amount of work this is going to take, I think it is better that the values be lowered by 100, even if superweapons also need to be reduced by a smaller amount.

Keep in mind this whole thing was brought about because we are running out of ceiling for numbers. The advantage of reducing values by 100 over 20 or 25 is it gives 4 to 5 times the wiggle room for relative power.

Since the amount of work of going to 100 compared to 20 or 25, in the big picture, is about the same, better to do that value even if golems need their power reduced as well.