Author Topic: AI War Beta 7.023-4 "So A Carrier And A MkIII Lightning Warhead Walk Into A Bar  (Read 12878 times)

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
What have I wrought?
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,251
What have I wrought?

Destruction on a galactic scale!

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Destruction on a galactic scale!
Oh I do that pretty much every day.

This appears to be something much more severe.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Faulty Logic

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,194
  • Bane of the AI
Quote
What have I wrought?
A huge warhead buff. Now they can kill starships and more exotic things, if I really need them to. I'm going to test how the full non-nuclear warhead pile does against the FS reserve. But it just took out 3400 parasites and 667 starships mkIV without issue (except AIP, of course).
If warheads can't solve it, use more warheads.

Offline Draco18s

  • Resident Velociraptor
  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,251
Destruction on a galactic scale!
Oh I do that pretty much every day.

This appears to be something much more severe.

Have you considered making a game along the lines of Evil Genius?

Offline Faulty Logic

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,194
  • Bane of the AI
The exo evaporated to three armored warheads mkIII.

I suggest:

Lighting warheads and martyrs get a limit on the amount of damage they can do to a single unit:
Warheads at 10 million/mark
Martyrs at 5 million/mark

Armored warheads should retain their ability to hit big things, but be very costly:
AIP cost to 3/mark
Metal to 1 million/mark

And total damage for all of them should probably be halved.
If warheads can't solve it, use more warheads.

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
The exo evaporated to three armored warheads mkIII.

Quote from: The AI
GG


Quote
(Faulty suggesting a warhead nerf)

(faints)



On the per-target cap, presumably that should still not apply to carriers.  I can't really have it apply on a per-unit basis to the stuff inside the carrier, since it just knows how many of each type it has, not what their current health is, etc.  So it just tracks "damage done to the next internal unit", etc.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Toranth

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,244
The exo evaporated to three armored warheads mkIII.
I'm not sure I would consider 9 AIP a fair trade for just killing an Exowave, unless the alternative was losing.  The exo will be back in an hour, but your AIP won't have gone back down.


I suggest:

Lighting warheads and martyrs get a limit on the amount of damage they can do to a single unit:
Warheads at 10 million/mark
Martyrs at 5 million/mark

Armored warheads should retain their ability to hit big things, but be very costly:
AIP cost to 3/mark
Metal to 1 million/mark

And total damage for all of them should probably be halved.
Capping warheads at 10M/mark means a max of 30M to a signle target - better than nothing, but not all that useful against starships or other big targets.
If you were putting a cap in, I'd suggest something more like 100,000,000 flat for all marks.  Enough to kill almost anything, but still capped so stuff like Golems can sometimes survive.

I also see no reason why the Armored AIP should triple.  If you wiped out an entire exo with 3 Mk III Armoreds, you could have done it just as easily with 3 Mk III normal Warheads.  I have no idea what the cost was supposed to be - besides "not 1".

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
The intended metal cost was actually 1M*mk, I'd just set it in the wrong order.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Toranth

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,244
On the per-target cap, presumably that should still not apply to carriers.  I can't really have it apply on a per-unit basis to the stuff inside the carrier, since it just knows how many of each type it has, not what their current health is, etc.  So it just tracks "damage done to the next internal unit", etc.
Does this mean Attrition damage no longer applies to carriers/contents?  Or does it apply funny, aka 1000 units = first unit takes 1000 times the per-second damage?

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Does this mean Attrition damage no longer applies to carriers/contents?  Or does it apply funny, aka 1000 units = first unit takes 1000 times the per-second damage?
No, all sources of damage still work normally on the carrier, but the damage is passed on to the contents.  So attrition still does 1-damage-per-second (per mark or whatever it is) to the carrier as a whole, and that gets passed on to the first unit.

So the units inside still have some defensive benefits.  Not that this comforts them when the carrier enters range of a Spire City and/or Capital Fleet.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games? Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Faulty Logic

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,194
  • Bane of the AI
Quote
Capping warheads at 10M/mark means a max of 30M to a signle target - better than nothing, but not all that useful against starships or other big targets.
That was the intent. To kill big targets, you'll need armored warheads, or lots of lightning warheads/martyrs.

Quote
If you wiped out an entire exo with 3 Mk III Armoreds, you could have done it just as easily with 3 Mk III normal Warheads.
No, because lightning warheads would have the per-unit damage cap.

Quote
I see no reason armored AIP should triple
Because they can kill the really nasty stuff.
If warheads can't solve it, use more warheads.

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
are warheads supercloak and transport immune nowadays? If not, I cant really see a difference between armored and lightning

On a side note, there should totally be a shiptype warhead cruiser or something, a utility unlockable that can store warheads (I imagine cloaked/armored and prevents aip loss from warheads inside it if it gets destroyed). I dunno what else it would do other than carry warheads, but I imagine thats enough.
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit

Offline Aklyon

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,089
On a side note, there should totally be a shiptype warhead cruiser or something, a utility unlockable that can store warheads (I imagine cloaked/armored and prevents aip loss from warheads inside it if it gets destroyed). I dunno what else it would do other than carry warheads, but I imagine thats enough.
Well technically theres the Lightning Torpedo frigate, but I don't think that counts unless its gotten a secret buff from the warhead changes.

Offline Lancefighter

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,440
Well, the idea being more 'a way for warheads to be safely-ish used at a knowledge cost'. I just remember the amount of 'fun' I had managing transports full of warheads a few campaigns back
Ideas? Suggestions? Concerns? Bugs to be squashed? Report them on the Mantis Bugtracker!

Author of the Dyson Project and the Spire Gambit