Author Topic: AI War state of the game  (Read 45185 times)

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #150 on: November 10, 2012, 10:31:04 am »
Can anyone find a good balance point for the Mk. II and Mk. III (resource output and/or unlock costs) that doesn't make them underpowered or overpowered, especially when compared to econ stations? If no, then take them out.

I do agree that the AI needs to be a bit more dynamic it's defense (especially with deep strike "blobs") and be smarter with how it counter attacks without making them easy to bait. Whether this is with new behaviour, new AI only ship types, or a mixture of the two, is something to be hashed out.
Great steps have been taken in this (thanks Kieth :) ), but more is needed.

Ideally, all the bonus ship types would be competitively viable for certain competitively viable tactics/strategies.
Then again, didn't you say that the bonus ship omission file would be a short term workaround for balance issues until the balance passes could completed? (and even then, it would serve as a good way to exclude optional game mechanics a player does not like)
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 10:42:58 am by TechSY730 »

Offline Wingflier

  • Core Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,753
  • To add me on Steam, click the little Steam icon ^
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #151 on: November 10, 2012, 10:51:12 am »
Quote
Ideally, all the bonus ship types would be competitively viable for certain competitively viable tactics/strategies.
Then again, didn't you say that the bonus ship omission file would be a short term workaround for balance issues until the balance passes could completed? (and even then, it would serve as a good way to exclude optional game mechanics a player does not like)
Yeah, it's really just short term.  It's an easy and simple fix until some major (probably several week or several month) rework can be done. 

If it were up to me, and I was the one doing the entire hull type and armor rework, I would start from the ground up.  I would start with just a basic list of the Triangles and about 20 extremely simple bonus ships (it's not like there isn't enough of those to go around).  Once I was convinced that all 20 of those had been balanced, I would add 5 more the next patch.  Then, once all 25 of those were balanced, I'd add 5 more in the next patch etc.  This way it's much easier to test and tell whether all the ships are useful and balanced around each other. 

I think we need some kind of rough mathematical equation to determine each ship's worth as well.  If each point of DPS, Armor, HP, speed, range, etc. were all assigned a value (and tweaked over time), it would be much easier to get a rough idea for how much a ship was worth instead of just eye-balling it the way we do now.

The bonus ship omission file would give players who aren't interested in participating in a beta that, in effect, removes most of the bonus ships from the game, a stable and individualized version to play with for awhile.

That's just my take on it.  I'm really sad that AI War doesn't support modding or I'd do most of this stuff myself.
"Inner peace is the void of expectation. It is the absence of our shared desperation to feel a certain way."

Offline TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #152 on: November 10, 2012, 11:14:27 am »
Quote
Ideally, all the bonus ship types would be competitively viable for certain competitively viable tactics/strategies.
Then again, didn't you say that the bonus ship omission file would be a short term workaround for balance issues until the balance passes could completed? (and even then, it would serve as a good way to exclude optional game mechanics a player does not like)
Yeah, it's really just short term.  It's an easy and simple fix until some major (probably several week or several month) rework can be done. 

If it were up to me, and I was the one doing the entire hull type and armor rework, I would start from the ground up.  I would start with just a basic list of the Triangles and about 20 extremely simple bonus ships (it's not like there isn't enough of those to go around).  Once I was convinced that all 20 of those had been balanced, I would add 5 more the next patch.  Then, once all 25 of those were balanced, I'd add 5 more in the next patch etc.  This way it's much easier to test and tell whether all the ships are useful and balanced around each other.

With 100 or so bonus ship types (is that right? TODO, check actual number of bonus ship types), this sort of approach would take quite a bit of time...
Though this approach would have the highest chance of giving good results, it would also be one of the lengthiest and painful approaches. Not sure if something this extreme is needed, but it might.

Quote
I think we need some kind of rough mathematical equation to determine each ship's worth as well.  If each point of DPS, Armor, HP, speed, range, etc. were all assigned a value (and tweaked over time), it would be much easier to get a rough idea for how much a ship was worth instead of just eye-balling it the way we do now

You are not the only one

Offline Kahuna

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,222
  • Kahuna Matata!
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #153 on: November 10, 2012, 11:31:22 am »
I hope the developers actually read this thread.
set /A diff=10
if %diff%==max (
   set /A me=:)
) else (
   set /A me=SadPanda
)
echo Check out my AI War strategy guide and find your inner Super Cat!
echo 2592 hours of AI War and counting!
echo Kahuna matata!

Offline Mánagarmr

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,272
  • if (isInRange(target)) { kill(target); }
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #154 on: November 10, 2012, 11:31:50 am »
I hope the developers actually read this thread.
Is there really any doubt?
Click here to get started with Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports.

Thank you for contributing to making the game better!

Offline Kahuna

  • Core Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,222
  • Kahuna Matata!
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #155 on: November 10, 2012, 12:27:36 pm »
TODO LIST:
-Remove MarkII and III Harvesters or halve their efficiency.
-Triple armors, halve multipliers and Increase cap healths by cap*10,000
-Make CPAs and Exos strength depend on difficulty level and AIP instead of time. This is a war against the AIs not time. Or just make them scale slower with time. Atm the first CPA is 2k ships, next 4k, 8k and so on. Thanks to the time scaling.
-Greatly reduce Core Reserve respawn rates to make it possible to destroy the AI Home Worlds WITHOUT ANY super weapons (Golems, Spire Craft, Champions, Spire Fleet) and to compensate for nerfing the players economy. Nerf super weapons (stats).. especially Golems.. to compensate.
-Reduce Special Forces respawn rate but increase their max cap and make Special Forces move in multiple groups instead of 2k ships in 1 blob camping next to 1 SF Guard Post.
-Buff Deflector Drones, Electric Shuttles, Parasites (triple their damage), Neinzul Commandos, Raptors, Raiders, Grenade Launchers, Autocannons, Teleporting Leech (cap cost to "cap cost/3"), Gravity Rippers, Electric Bombers.
-Nerf Tackle Drone Launchers (yes, more), Spire Blades, Gravity Drainers (reduce slow AOE),
set /A diff=10
if %diff%==max (
   set /A me=:)
) else (
   set /A me=SadPanda
)
echo Check out my AI War strategy guide and find your inner Super Cat!
echo 2592 hours of AI War and counting!
echo Kahuna matata!

Offline keith.lamothe

  • Arcen Games Staff
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,505
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #156 on: November 10, 2012, 12:29:26 pm »
I hope the developers actually read this thread.
I'm mostly skimming for now, I don't have the energy currently to do the necessary distillation of accurate info from "familiarity-breeds-contempt", "rose-tinted-glasses", and a variety of other still-useful-but-trickier phenomenon ;)
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 TechSY730

  • Core Member Mark V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,570
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #157 on: November 10, 2012, 12:50:21 pm »
TODO LIST:
-Remove MarkII and III Harvesters or halve their efficiency.
-Triple armors, halve multipliers and Increase cap healths by cap*10,000
-Make CPAs and Exos strength depend on difficulty level and AIP instead of time. This is a war against the AIs not time. Or just make them scale slower with time. Atm the first CPA is 2k ships, next 4k, 8k and so on. Thanks to the time scaling.
-Greatly reduce Core Reserve respawn rates to make it possible to destroy the AI Home Worlds WITHOUT ANY super weapons (Golems, Spire Craft, Champions, Spire Fleet) and to compensate for nerfing the players economy. Nerf super weapons (stats).. especially Golems.. to compensate.
-Reduce Special Forces respawn rate but increase their max cap and make Special Forces move in multiple groups instead of 2k ships in 1 blob camping next to 1 SF Guard Post.
-Buff Deflector Drones, Electric Shuttles, Parasites (triple their damage), Neinzul Commandos, Raptors, Raiders, Grenade Launchers, Autocannons, Teleporting Leech (cap cost to "cap cost/3"), Gravity Rippers, Electric Bombers.
-Nerf Tackle Drone Launchers (yes, more), Spire Blades, Gravity Drainers (reduce slow AOE),

I'm on my phone, so I am not doing my normal fancy inlining of answers.

Special forces has recently gotten a nerf in respawn rate and a buff in caps. Are you saying even more is needed? Agreed about allowing it to split up though.

I am also saddened that the strategic reserve respawn rate did not get a similar nerf when the special forces got theirs.

Wouldn't increasing cap health by N*cap be the same as increasing individual health by N?
While I understand that in this game, individual strength is generally more useful than numbers, thus high cap/low individual strength stuff should get a relative buff in cap strength compared to the average, I'm not sure if that is the way to go about it.

Tripling armor and halfing multipliers, or rather halfing the abs(1 - multiplier) to keep multipliers that are <2 from going to <1, although would not be enough (hull type distribution still needs a review), it would be a good first step.

Offline Eternaly_Lost

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 336
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #158 on: November 10, 2012, 03:02:17 pm »
Personally, I think any real ship adjustment needs to be done from the very start, like was mentioned before.

Rebalance starting with the Triangles and 20 bonus ships, like was said back a bit, then add on until it was all done.

The issue there is it will take a long time, and you can't be certain that we will not just end up moving the issue to something else by the time we are done.

Offline KDR_11k

  • Hero Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 904
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #159 on: November 10, 2012, 04:08:28 pm »
Merely nerfing harvester upgrades isn't enough, even with MkI harvs your economy is pretty damn strong even after taking only the HW-adjacent planets. Energy economy even moreso.

As for golem balance, at medium the golems eat insane amounts of power. Nerf the player energy economy and the golems become a major cost factor even without the attrition (which is really damn tedious to deal with BTW).

Offline Wanderer

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,579
  • If you're not drunk you're doing it wrong.
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #160 on: November 10, 2012, 09:10:30 pm »
This conversation is... everywhere.  Good grief.  From economic nerf advocacy to micro-twitch tactical gaming on par with SC II.  I couldn't even begin to get involved in everything being discussed without a few hours to write the dissertation and that's just in the last 2 pages.

I... good grief.  Alright, let's see if I can throw my $0.02 in on the high notes.  I'm going to work backwards, I only have 15 minutes here before I need to be on the road to meet with friends.

Economic Nerfs vs. the blob:
For the love of all that's holy why?  Let me spell this out for you:

If you nerf the econ guerilla attacks become unreasonable, you only blob because otherwise losses are even less recoverable.  You can't 'donate' units, you MUST fight with everything.  No Raid SS attacks on the flank.  No Eyebot assaults for an unreasonable guardian.  You blob, you bait, there is no fight, there is only overkill... or waiting 2+ hours to recover.  No more multiple assaults on MK IV worlds, they're brick walls.

End result is going back to the Econ stations and ignoring the Harvesters anyway.  If you're going to do an econ nerf, you need to go across the boards.

Energy resources:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the problems here.  On one hand, we don't have enough energy to actually power up our arsenal until 6+ worlds.  On the other hand, we have too much.  Huh?

I know I haven't caught up with my AAR fight in a while but I had to build 2 matter converters simply to support my small empire when I wanted to bring cloak starships online along with a beach-head.  Now, you're saying we have too much when we *know* the superweapons (golems and FS) require boatloads of it.  What am I missing here?  I sure as heck don't feel that I'm overflowing with wattage. 

For the record, said game is NOT a 10/10.

Multiplier manipulation:
Keith has stated the game design goal of the multipliers: To create counter-ship fights.  Most multipliers are in the 4-6x range, with a few hitting 8s (I'd have to look again).  Halving them again practically removes any reason to bother.  Is that the point?  That blob on blob instead of strike ship vs. particular foe is the point?  Wing's heavily advocating significant micro and this would actually defeat the purpose, not improve it.  Everything meet everything!  FIGHT!  Well, why not, they've only got fighters but who cares, nothing's really that much better.

Same strategy repetition:
Errr, yup.  The higher in difficulty you go, and the more experienced you become with the game, the more familiar you are with the 'Best' methods of defeating the enemy.  This is a common issue in anything not PvP.  The execution of said 'best method' is where it comes into play.  Better selection of worlds to choose.  Minor tweaks in small areas to react to changes by the AI (example, using something other than raid SSs against the AI that feeds an OMD onto every planet).

You are never given every tool in the box in any particular game.  For example, if the AI drags out Blade Spawners on you, you're not guaranteed to ever have a sniper type unit (other than turrets).  You counter with cloakers instead, or transport drops, or Riot III grav wells.  These basic tools must be available because every counter is not constant.  That you've learned to use these basic tools well enough that there is no feeling of intensity leads me to one of two conclusions: Either you've mastered the game to the point that you're no longer enjoying it, or you haven't revved up the difficulty to where you're on the edge and execution of the strategy is the key.

You can plan your strategy, but it's all about the execution against more formidible forces.  There's a reason I play at the severe levels.  You're absolutely right.  If you're not seeing a need to change, or even tweak, your strategy, the AI isn't dangerous enough to you.

AI not responding enough at AIP 10/AI increase in danger:
You're quite correct here.  The AI at AIP 10 is a wuss.  It's supposed to be by lore, it doesn't care about the humans anymore.  That champions introduced the ability to become a super-power without any AIP gain is a different issue.  There's an easier cure to that.  Have nebula defeats raise the FLOOR (not the AIP, just the floor) for each nebula conquered.  You can't sit on the homeworld and take out half the universe for free anymore.

As to the AIP increases being too strong, I tend to disagree.  I believe they should be a little lighter in the front end and even heavier in the back, at least at the top-most levels, than they currently are.  Right now taking another planet at 220 AIP is just 'meh, whatever, who cares', and taking another one at 30 AIP nearly DOUBLES the expected inbounds.  That ratio seems horribly off to me.

Regarding 10/10 defeatability:
Keith has stated, repeatedly, that 10/10 is not meant to be winnable, and is supposed to roll you around in the dirt and then kick you a few more times.  If you cheese the hell out of it that's, well, cheesing the hell out of it.  It would be impossible to balance some of the outlier options to not allow it when they're combined and still have them interesting in normal play.

@Histadine:
The problem with your proposal is an original design goal from the first generation of this game.  Namely, that caps of ships don't become useless as soon as you can produce the next one up.  You're talking about a population cap instead of a per ship cap, basically.  Common enough of an idea in most RTS games.

However, that idea was forcibly discarded for this game so that 'early mark' ships aren't made completely obsolete during an upgrade.  It doesn't fit in any lore but was a base design decision.

Dammit, I've been typing for 10 minutes longer than I intended and there's cute girls with smores around a campfire about 45 minutes away.  I'll try to catch up with any rebuttals tomorrow.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2012, 09:12:53 pm by Wanderer »
... and then we'll have cake.

Offline zoutzakje

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Crosshatch Conqueror
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #161 on: November 10, 2012, 09:36:32 pm »
you managed to type all that in 25 mins? wow nice, would have taken me an hour for sure.
Either way, Wanderer knows how to express himself better than I do, as usual. I have to agree with pretty much everything he said. I could write a few dozen pages of why I agree with him, but it's been 3 am here.

Offline Oralordos

  • Sr. Member Mark III
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • Suffering from Chronic Backstabbing Disorder
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #162 on: November 10, 2012, 10:02:01 pm »
Well I agree with Wanderer on most points I do have two comments on the super-post.

AI not responding enough at AIP 10/AI increase in danger:
You're quite correct here.  The AI at AIP 10 is a wuss.  It's supposed to be by lore, it doesn't care about the humans anymore.  That champions introduced the ability to become a super-power without any AIP gain is a different issue.  There's an easier cure to that.  Have nebula defeats raise the FLOOR (not the AIP, just the floor) for each nebula conquered.  You can't sit on the homeworld and take out half the universe for free anymore.
I really like this suggestion. On normal circumstances you wouldn't notice it, but it would prevent low AIP champion cheese.

@Histadine:
The problem with your proposal is an original design goal from the first generation of this game.  Namely, that caps of ships don't become useless as soon as you can produce the next one up.  You're talking about a population cap instead of a per ship cap, basically.  Common enough of an idea in most RTS games.

However, that idea was forcibly discarded for this game so that 'early mark' ships aren't made completely obsolete during an upgrade.  It doesn't fit in any lore but was a base design decision.
From what I got from his suggestion was a per-mark population cap. Which sounded really interesting until I realized it's a population cap like all the other games have. Interesting as a possible plot, but not really too unique.

Offline LaughingThesaurus

  • Master Member Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,723
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #163 on: November 10, 2012, 10:08:43 pm »
I don't like the idea of an overall population cap at all. That's one of the things that I thought was rather cool about the game. Sure, it takes a lot of thought out of "What should I build?" However, in a game like this where you set the pace, you can just scrap all your missile frigates and grab fighters when you need them instead, in the case of even a by-mark pop cap. You've probably already got an automatic choke point that isn't being manned by your fleet already, so why does it matter? All it does is it adds time to wait for yet more ships to build. What fun.

If anything, energy should be toned down enough that you stand a chance of running out. Sure I have issues when I've only got 2 or 3 planets and am playing SC/Golems Medium, but when I have more, energy is nigh on infinite. I always thought of energy to be your galaxy-wide ship cap, and the ship caps themselves as their own unique mechanic. It just has never really come into play.

Offline zoutzakje

  • Hero Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,052
  • Crosshatch Conqueror
Re: AI War state of the game
« Reply #164 on: November 10, 2012, 10:35:05 pm »
I don't know how people that play low AIP games (taking few worlds) experience the current energy system. But for my playstyle (finding a nice target and capturing everything along the way, all the time) 150k energy is too much. Energy is literally never an issue for me anymore, and I play with Golems medium. I would be ok with 100k energy per collector, maybe even less.