AI War Beta 7.023-4 "So A Carrier And A MkIII Lightning Warhead Walk Into A Bar

[Fleet Unity]

Ok thanks Keith for replying to this that good all I was worried about was it being too hard as I love extra challenges as well but sometimes I just think it would be nice to be able to use the championships with out the exo's or nemesis frigates attacking you not in all games but some and I do know exo's can be too hard for new players I know this because when I was playing with a new player once they did not like exo's because they wanted to get use to the normal game first. That is why I was asking if it could be turned off if you wanted it to be.

[keith.lamothe]

New one

[keith.lamothe]

Questions. If 4/10 is the baseline for most non-AI-Difficulty settings, should not Alt-Response 4/10 be THE EXACT SAME as what the normal champion response should be/is going to be?

In theory.  And it's now much closer to that (with 4/10 giving you almost everything, and 5/10 giving the rest).  I hadn't specifically intended to follow the normal pattern exactly here, though I do see where you''re coming from.

[Zeyi]

One thing on hacking, since the AI is after-all an all powerful computer network, would it not be appropriate for it to have some kind of response in kind to hacking? Now whether this would be on by default, an AI type, a counter hacker plot in the lobby I'm not sure, it would be up to the community to balance but I do think its a mechanic which would add some interesting results:

A Percentage chance to disable turrets, specific ships, shields, etc on waves. Temporarily disabling facilities, disrupting supply on planets. (Obviously the potential is as extensive as the options available to human hacking)

Basically, turn on Beachheads.

Huh? I play with beachheads and all they do is remove supply from a planet on a wave 10% of the time? How is that even remotely similar to what I suggested as an additional counter response to human hacking.

Am I really the only one who feels like hacking is massively over powered and the AI needs a more drastic counter to it? I don't even notice the AI reponding to my hacking, unless they EMP the whole planet, which requires a little micro work but still the ships produced provide a steady stream of salvage and not much else.

[Draco18s]

Huh? I play with beachheads and all they do is remove supply from a planet on a wave 10% of the time? How is that even remotely similar to what I suggested as an additional counter response to human hacking.

Fair, that kind of thing doesn't happen in response to hacking.

[Zeyi]

It doesn't happen with the beachheads plot either unless you are only paying attention to a very specific part of my post where i spit-balled possible counter hacks the AI could use (and completely ignored the part where I pointed out the far reaching potential for such a feature). Beacheading only disrupts supply and nothing else. It's actually the one I'd like *least* like to see as an AI hack due to the existence of beacheads (but I included it because if we didn't repeat mechanics we'd only have one type of exo-wave).

The way it is at the moment hacking just feels like cheese but it is ridiculous to think an advanced AI would not have the capability to hack back (at least as an optional secondary AI type). If I can disable those pesky spire maws, I'd at least like to see them get me back by temporarily disabling one of my ships occasionally. I wouldn't even think it to be overly difficult from a coding perspective in that you'd just force low power mode for all of that ship type I assume.

[Draco18s]

Beacheading only disrupts supply and nothing else.

Blocked supply means that turrets don't work, shields go down, fortresses go offline, and spacedocks can't build units.

Which is almost exactly what you were asking for:

A Percentage chance to disable turrets, specific ships, shields, etc on waves. Temporarily disabling facilities, disrupting supply on planets.

[Zeyi]

You think I'm suggesting they all happen at once or are you being purposefully stand-offish? (I assume the latter as cherry picked your quote, omitting the latter and preceding part which showed it be a list of possible suggestions. Not to mention the later post which further confirmed this.)

Anyway I'll leave this to the mantis suggestion I posted a few days ago, I have no desire to argue with a brick wall, or argue at all for that matter 

[Kahuna]

You think I'm suggesting they all happen at once

It did sound like you were listing that would be disabled.

or are you being purposefully stand-offish?

Well..

I assume the latter as cherry picked your quote

I have no desire to argue with a brick wall

..talk about being stand-offish


PS. sorry for

cherry pick

ing

Sincerely,
Super Cat

[Draco18s]

You think I'm suggesting they all happen at once

You want it in response to hacking, I get it.

But the idea you're actually putting forward is functionally identical to Beachheads.

[Zeyi]

You think I'm suggesting they all happen at once

It did sound like you were listing that would be disabled.

or are you being purposefully stand-offish?

Well..

I assume the latter as cherry picked your quote

I have no desire to argue with a brick wall

..talk about being stand-offish


PS. sorry for

cherry pick

ing

Sincerely,
Super Cat

Since we have some issues with basic English here let's break this down:

One thing on hacking, since the AI is after-all an all powerful computer network, would it not be appropriate for it to have some kind of response in kind to hacking? Now whether this would be on by default, an AI type, a counter hacker plot in the lobby I'm not sure, it would be up to the community to balance but I do think its a mechanic which would add some interesting results:

"In kind to hacking", hacks don't all happen at once guys. You pick one. Colons donate proceeding enumerations, in this case it was a list. I am unaware of anywhere I pointed out that everything happens at once on the list, actually as was pointed out I even included several things that come under breaking supply along with the individual suggestion of disabling supply. This should have been a significant hint. If you think it could have been worded better, you could have asked for clarification, instead of repeatedly telling me to turn beachheads on.

And yes, that is arguing with a brick wall. I tried to discuss, I repeatedly got the same response.

See, he did it again:

You think I'm suggesting they all happen at once

You want it in response to hacking, I get it.

But the idea you're actually putting forward is functionally identical to Beachheads.

No, no it is not Mr Wall. If that makes me standoffish then so be it, but let me address this:

I assume the latter as cherry picked your quote

If you look at the quote there is a bracketed part afterwards "(Obviously the potential is as extensive as the options available to human hacking)" if that says beachheads to you, you either don't hack or you don't use beachheads, mostly likely both. Not to mention the posts since further trying to attempt in clarifying this. But of course I'm the standoff, because repeatedly replying to something with the same, irrelevant response isn't at all.   

If you don't like it, don't support it on mantis, if you don't understand it - PM me and ask me for a better explanation. If you want to have a debate, pick a proper subject and let's go to offtopic but please stop telling me that this is something which it isn't.

[Draco18s]

One of your options was interrupting supply.
Interrupting supply does all those other things.
Beachheads interrupt supply.

Capiche?

It's almost like you're being deliberately obtuse.

[Coppermantis]

Maybe they're not identical, but there is significant overlap. In effect, it is a "mini-beachhead" that fires more frequently during the hack and might affect a few things that BH does not.

[Zeyi]

One of your options was interrupting supply.
Interrupting supply does all those other things.
Beachheads interrupt supply.

Capiche?

I just explained this. Read.

It's almost like you're being deliberately obtuse.

Oh really? That makes two of us then. I'm actually still not convinced that you aren't purposefully trolling me, but I have no idea why you would so I am honestly just dumbfounded.

I am super wary, and have been since this escalated, that we are being incredibly spammy. If this is a genuine misunderstanding I am always in #aiwar, or the PM system works. However if you are as fed up as I am, let's leave this idiotic mess and take it back to basics:

I AM SUGGESTING THE AI IS ABLE TO PERFORM IT'S OWN HACKS AGAINST THE HUMAN PLAYER.
I think this would be both a logical feature and an interesting one. The Mantis issue for this  suggestion is here: http://www.arcengames.com/mantisbt/view.php?id=15131


EDIT:

Maybe they're not identical, but there is significant overlap. In effect, it is a "mini-beachhead" that fires more frequently during the hack and might affect a few things that BH does not.

Yes, kind of. I would hope, if liked, the concept could be developed further (like hacking for humans will likely see more changes, more features I thought it logical the AI go its fair share and this would just be the initial feature suggestion for such a thing. Personally I don't see an issue with overlapping features, since as I already pointed out there is multiple sources of exo-waves, and everything from counter attack waves to raid engine waves are all just themselves extensions of the fundamental attack wave. Though I do think an AI hack could also be performed in a similar way to Hybrids deploying the dyson antagoniser or the new threatfleet feature that's being discussed - except it would take place on a human world presumably.

[keith.lamothe]

The AI is evidently employing some manner of Forum Antagonizer counter-hacking, already.