AI Defense System: Moving Forward From Core Shield Generators

[x4000]

Original Discussion here (now locked), for reference: Core Shield Generators - Discussion

Briefly: from the poll on the other side, it seems like there are some people who like or love CSGs, many others that don't really care, an even larger number that slightly dislike them, and some people who really hate them.  After reading the many (many) responses to my request for concrete discussion of what exactly people did and did not like about how CSGs affect their gameplay, the core takeaway I have is this: no one solution is going to make everyone happy. 

Taking away CSGs will make a few people (RCIX, etc) unhappy, whereas changing them significantly would undermine the entire point of how they are set up, and probably wouldn't satisfy the mechanic's biggest detractors, anyhow.  So I'll do neither: I won't take it away or leave it in place (whaaat?).

A few people also suggested the idea of having a choice in the lobby of what kind of defense system the AI will have, and at the end of the day that's what seems like the best choice.

AI Defense Systems Dropdown
The lobby will have a new dropdown labeled "AI Defense Systems," and the players must choose an option from that.  The default will probably be Core Shield Generators unless people feel there is a big reason not to do so.  As the CSGs provide nice intermediate goals for new players, it seems like the good first-on option.

Upgrading Existing Savegames
Existing savegames will default into whatever the default is.  However, there will be a flag on the save noting that it wasn't explicitly chosen, and there will be commands that provided that will let you switch to a different AIDS option.  So, if you start a new campaign and choose something you don't like, or if you upgrade an existing save, you can then use the commands to change your AIDS option once. 

If someone accidentally starts with CSGS (or any other option), or if they aren't happy with how their save gets modified on upload, then they can use a command to change it.  But once you chance it once via command, you can't do so again from that save.  Thus you can't use the commands as a way to continually toggle around the AIDS options to cheat.

AI Defense Systems Dropdown Options
Now, to the explanation of the specific options, from which you must choose one and precisely one per campaign.  You will have to choose something from this dropdown, but if you don't like any of the options that are so far planned, feel free to submit your own.  We can't do everything, especially not immediately, and especially not if it takes a huge amount of design/programming/art work to implement.

But this is clearly a sensitive issue for folks, so we'll do our best to be accommodating.  But if you can return the favor and think of the simplest possible way to achieve your goals of what would make you happy with the least work on our part, that would be appreciated.  This whole thing is basically a side trek, extra work on top of the big mound of balance/bugfix work that is already waiting in mantis (and ever-growing).

So, to the list:

Core Shield Generators
Working as they currently do, but with of course an entry for them in the Objectives screen.  The fact that it's not there already is just something we haven't had time to do yet, not an oversight or an intentional omission.  I don't think there's much to discuss here, that's bean beat over pretty heavily in a different thread.

AI Progress Gating (thanks Kemeno)
When this is selected as the AIDS, you won't be able to damage the AI core guard posts or AI home planet command stations until the AI Progress has reached 500.  You can do anything you want to get it to that level, including just blowing up 10 nukes if you want.  This doesn't have a lot of the secondary benefits of the CSGS (intermediate goals, forcing territory to be spread out, etc), but so it goes.  I don't think there's much to discuss here, that's bean beat over pretty heavily in a different thread.

Planet Capture Gating (thanks HitmanN)
When this is selected, you won't be able  to damage the AI core guard posts or AI home planet command stations until you capture -- and HOLD -- at least 20% of the planets on the map.  If your hold on the map drops below 20% while you're in the middle of fighting the AI, the shields go back up, so watch out.  This will probably encourage even more turtling, sigh, but at least it makes players come and stay a while, so to speak.  I don't think there's much to discuss here, that's bean beat over pretty heavily in a different thread.

Anti-Deep-Strike Waves (thanks to Suzera and various others -- write in if you should have credit here)
The mechanics of this are still not 100% stabilized in my mind; it seems likely to be rife with logical exploitations and isn't in my normal play style, so you folks are going to have to help out with this one if you want to see it implemented.  But basically, it would be waves that get launched periodically (every 4 minutes?) against any non-scout, non-transport ships of yours that are way out in enemy territory -- say, more than 4 planets away from your planets?  That would penalize deep raiding without making it impossible. 

Rather than having a big mix of discussion in this thread, please constrain ALL design comments on this option to this separate thread I'm made for it: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,7799.0.html

Anti-Deep-Strike Hunter/Killers (thanks various -- write in if you should have credit here)
The idea on this one is also a bit nebulous, so will require further refinement from the community.  But the general idea -- I think -- is that when you kill an AI Planet (or attack it?  hmm) that is more than, say, 4 planets away from your home, a Hunter/Killer gets spawned.  HKs are wicked strong, and there are five various mark levels.  This idea isn't complete enough for actual implementation yet, and I'm honestly not feeling that inspired on it.  If you have better ideas on what the spawn rules should be, please comment.

Rather than having a big mix of discussion in this thread, please constrain ALL design comments on this option to this separate thread I'm made for it: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,7800.0.html

Shield Suppression Nodes (thanks to ?? -- write in if you should have credit here)
This idea was suggested, but I forget by exactly who; sorry, I was reading stuff from a ton of folks, and it all started to blur together by the end, and this was a pretty recent idea.  Anyway, the core idea was to make the players build in multiple disconnected groups, to make the game more interesting in that way.

You would have to build (perhaps) 5 different of these on an 80-planet map, and they would have to be 1) continuously held, 2) adjacent to an AI planet with a warp gate, and 3) not within two hops of any other shield suppression node in order to work.  On < 20 planet maps these would not be even present.  On 40 planet maps the number might be 3-4 rather than five, and on 20-30 maybe 2-3.

Rather than having a big mix of discussion in this thread, please constrain ALL design comments on this option to this separate thread I'm made for it: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,7802.0.html

Other ideas?
If you hate everything on the list, don't tell me why.  Tell me what sort of option you would want, and just ignore the rest.  Rather than trying to satisfy everyone with one all-inclusive feature, we'll try to do a variety of features so that everyone likes at least one.  Again, the simpler you can keep your suggestion for us to implement, the vastly likelier it is to be implemented in any near-term timeframe.

Thanks!

[Wingflier]

If I'm understanding correctly, the problem (and reason) for Core Shield Generators is that deep raiding as a mechanic is too powerful, and allows the player to circumvent AIP.

I propose a solution that causes the player to accrue 1 AIP every minute everytime they have an attacking force over 3 planets away from one of their owned planets.  The logic behind this is simple, the AI, when you are taking planets in a normal and understandable fashion, finds the human threat to be "manageable".  However, when you start "deep-striking" them, they realize that the threat is greater than they had previously anticipated, and will thus begin reevaluating their original assessment of you.

Causing AIP per minute for deep-strikes doesn't render them useless, but forces the player to actually make the decision of whether the strike will be worth it or not.  And with this mechanic, there is no way you can "deep strike" your way through the game without accruing a significant amount of AIP.

This solution is also unique in that it doesn't "force" players to do anything (like take ARSes etc.), it just limits their options for what you consider "abusing" the game.  Please add my suggestion to the list, thank you.

[x4000]

If I'm understanding correctly, the problem (and reason) for Core Shield Generators is that deep raiding as a mechanic is too powerful, and allows the player to circumvent AIP.

I propose a solution that causes the player to accrue 1 AIP every minute everytime they have an attacking force over 3 planets away from one of their owned planets.  The logic behind this is simple, the AI, when you are taking planets in a normal and understandable fashion, finds the human threat to be "manageable".  However, when you start "deep-striking" them, they realize that the threat is greater than they had previously anticipated, and will thus begin reevaluating their original assessment of you.

Causing AIP per minute for deep-strikes doesn't render them useless, but forces the player to actually make the decision of whether the strike will be worth it or not.  And with this mechanic, there is no way you can "deep strike" your way through the game without accruing a significant amount of AIP.  Please add my suggestion to the list, thank you.

That's actually REALLY interesting.  I think that some players would still really like the CSGs (RCIX, et al), but that might be a way to really neatly balance the actual deep striking problem.  I cross-posted this to the topic about deep striking in general: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,7804.0.html

There are actually a whole hodgepodge of things these mechanics would ideally address, although you did hit on the core one:
1. Making the game into a multi-stage affair rather than something where the finale can be achieved through quick deep-striking.
2. Having intermediate goals for the players that are a lot more clear, rather than quite as sandboxy (which some people love the idea of, other people hate with an intense passion -- hence that aspect being optional now).
3. Providing disincentives for players to just turtle or pursue an ultra-low-AI-Progress gameplay style.  Providing reasons for them to potentially have multiple groups of planets.


Possible solution:
Given your solution above, that might handle some of the deep striking concerns.  And then the rest of this conversation might actually be able to be tabled for a while: like I said, we aren't actively looking for work, there's plenty else to do.  The Core Shield Generators could then be something that are on by default, but toggleable-off in the way that astro trains used to be (astro trains now being an AI Plot, but that's so that they are default-off -- this would be the opposite, for the sake of newer players getting some guidance).

Thoughts?

And, with that, I'm out for the day.

[ShadowOTE]

I like the idea of high auto-AIP when you're behind the AI's lines, though I think it will need some tweaking before it's not just another speedbump. As I've said before, the idea of toggling between various AI home defenses sounds like a good solution, and I'm surprised you didn't mention superking's idea of having shield nodes replaced with various extremely powerful homeworld defense buffs. I also liked the suggestion of the "capture x important AI structures so you can learn how to shut down the shield" alternative.

[snrub_guy]

There are a couple of the new mechanics there that sound interesting to me. The shield network idea, and the building of a few structures on specific planets to lower the shields. Not really a fan of the minimum AI progress thing. It seems to go against the idea behind AI war, and makes things like data centres pretty much redundant.

One point I think could do with being made: If this drop-down menu does end up being created, would a "Random" defence type be possible? For those who like the AI to choose their weapon.

Like I said though, fairly happy with the original idea, and think it'll probably do me fine. Especially once the polish and balance phase is complete.

[BINXTHAMINX]

Before i start i'd just like to say i like the idea of anti- deep strike waves or something along those lines, anyway ...

I agree with Wingflier ... The motivation here seems to be to neuter the effectiveness of deep raiding.

Like Wingflier suggests, perhaps the solution is to make deep-raiding potentially far more costly/dangerous should it be attempted, but not impossible.

What about something like a stationary planetary radar, lets call it a Raid Warden or whatever. It conducts a planetary sweep once every minute/2 minutes, time could be dependent on the mk level? It detects cloaked ships and is only triggered by small numbers of ships, any number below what is necessary to put adjacent planets on alert (not scouts, transports).  If your ships are caught in the sweep you're detected.  Once detected the AI could be put on 'Raid alert'... get caught out three times (possibly less if it was to be a real deterrent) and WHAM! a whole load of pain comes your way, CPA or wave straight at you, minimum warning.  If it was comprised of higher mk ships this would make you think twice about any raid. Give the planetary radar massive health to negate its being raided itself, like a WH guardian? Voila ... raiding is dangerous but not impossible.

This could be way complex ... I'm no computer whizz, shoot it down, whatever, its just a suggestion.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Tbh, after rereading the possible alternatives to the Core shields, the Core Shield Generators seem way more elegant and simple solution.  A lot less exploitable and easy to implement.  The rest just are unattractive alternates that I worry will be a programming time sink and balancing issue more than the current system.  I also think we are wasting too much time on this issue when the focus should be on the expansion, but whatever, I guess this is a part of it.  

Also, boo on the 500 minimum AIP to attack the homeworld.  Not in favor of that mechanic at all. 

King

[ShadowOTE]

Yeah, I kinda agree with that. Much of this discussion is concerned with one of two things at this point:

-Alternatives to core shields
-Increasing the dangers of deep strikes

The former is probably something that will be eventually addressed as mentioned at the top - extra options added to the menu whenever the devs have some free time. The latter is probably more important in the short run, as it addresses the underlying problem - deep strikes have no downsides, and adding new midrange objectives is just increasing the number of territories you need to hit before moping up. While new mid-game objectives are great for game variety, they're treating the symptoms, not the underlying disease

[orzelek]

The 500 AIP seems a bit to much to live with - especially that turret limits prevent you from any decent defense of few chokepoints.

As for the shield gens - they are good idea but they shouldn't be so tied to ARS especially.

It would be much better if they would be random and you would get some reward for destroying one.
Or ARS would get modified so that it's not so useless.

[Don Carsto]

Hello,

why not do a three-path-solution with this amazing shield what the AI now installed on his home planets.
Let me explain:

First way, you can destroy this terrible Core shield generators.
But by the second way when you build a x number of anti-shield generators on your captured systems, so you can send out an huge faulting-signal to turn the core-shield-generator-function off.
So you must conquer a x number of planets and must hold them, cause you must build one of this anti-shield generators on ALL of this x planets.
And the third way: If you spend some knowledge you can learn that is it not necessary to destroy the shield generators? Why? Cause you can build a mobile faulting device, that let you turn off the shields. This device must placed somewhere near the homeworld, maybe its perma-cloaked, but its very knowledge expensive. 

So, we have solved all this problems. A player who like the CSGs can destroy them.
A player who hate them MUST investigate knowledge or MUST conquer x planets.

Thats my ideas after reading this post.

Cu,
DC

[Vinraith]

Actually the notion of a drop down menu for this is the first thing that's come up that I really dislike. That level of fragmentation in the game design is going to make it very hard for you guys going forward, I would think. Every design deciision will impact 5 different play styles built around 5 different mechanics, isn't that something of a nightmare?

I certainly think Wingflier's AIP solution to deep raiding both makes good design sense and also makes fantastically good lore sense. I would be inclined to implement that to solve the immediate problem and then look at the intermediate goals angle anew in light of it.

[ShadowOTE]

Actually the notion of a drop down menu for this is the first thing that's come up that I really dislike. That level of fragmentation in the game design is going to make it very hard for you guys going forward, I would think. Every design deciision will impact 5 different play styles built around 5 different mechanics, isn't that something of a nightmare?

I certainly think Wingflier's AIP solution to deep raiding both makes good design sense and also makes fantastically good lore sense. I would be inclined to implement that to solve the immediate problem and then look at the intermediate goals angle anew in light of it.

AI plots don't seem to have much of a problem, and there are already numerous menu options that this hasnt been an issue for. I think it's something to keep in mind, but it shouldn't raise too many problems. And yeah, implementing the AIP solution does sound good, and is definitely worth investigating.

[Yuugi]

Since there's already a lot of good input on this, I'll wait with further ideas of my own until I put a little more thought into them.

Just, please, for the love of god, find a better acronym than "AIDS" for this. DX

EDIT: Like AICD ("Core Defense"), AICDS, or whatever. Just an acronym that is less loaded.

[snrub_guy]

Hello,

why not do a three-path-solution with this amazing shield what the AI now installed on his home planets.
Let me explain:

First way, you can destroy this terrible Core shield generators.
But by the second way when you build a x number of anti-shield generators on your captured systems, so you can send out an huge faulting-signal to turn the core-shield-generator-function off.
So you must conquer a x number of planets and must hold them, cause you must build one of this anti-shield generators on ALL of this x planets.
And the third way: If you spend some knowledge you can learn that is it not necessary to destroy the shield generators? Why? Cause you can build a mobile faulting device, that let you turn off the shields. This device must placed somewhere near the homeworld, maybe its perma-cloaked, but its very knowledge expensive. 

So, we have solved all this problems. A player who like the CSGs can destroy them.
A player who hate them MUST investigate knowledge or MUST conquer x planets.

Thats my ideas after reading this post.

Cu,
DC

I could definitely get behind this as an idea. It seems more elegant than a menu of choices at the start, as it is choices you can make based on how the game is playing out. +1 from me here.

[shugyosha]

Actually the notion of a drop down menu for this is the first thing that's come up that I really dislike. That level of fragmentation in the game design is going to make it very hard for you guys going forward, I would think. Every design deciision will impact 5 different play styles built around 5 different mechanics, isn't that something of a nightmare?

I certainly think Wingflier's AIP solution to deep raiding both makes good design sense and also makes fantastically good lore sense. I would be inclined to implement that to solve the immediate problem and then look at the intermediate goals angle anew in light of it.

This,

and take out the core shield generators.